Economic Development Packet 2011 07-05-11 '��D Ct TY
o United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
it;fir
EST. ��� 1836
l : Yorkville, Illinois 60560
Telephone: 630-553-4350
Fax: 630-553-7575
AGENDA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
6:30 p.m.
City Hall Conference Room
Citizen Comments:
Minutes for Correction/Approval: June 7, 2011
Items Recommended by Plan Commission/ZBA for Approval:
New Business:
1. EDC 2011-24 Building Permit Report for May 2011
2. EDC 2011-25 Building Inspection Report Summary for May 2011
3. EDC 2011-26 Transportation to Water Park Ideas
Old Business:
1. EDC 2011-13 Digital Billboard Signs—Discussion
2. EDC 2011-22 Development Fee Research—Discussion
Additional Business:
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
WORKSHEET
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
6:30 PM
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. June 7, 2011
❑ Approved
❑ As presented
❑ As amended
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW BUSINESS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EDC 2011-24 Building Permit Report for May 2011
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. EDC 2011-25 Building Inspection Report Summary for May 2011
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EDC 2011-26 Transportation to Water Park Ideas
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLD BUSINESS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
l. EDC 2011-13 Digital Billboard Signs - Discussion
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. EDC 2011-22 Development Fee Research - Discussion
❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N
❑ Approved by Committee
❑ Bring back to Committee
❑ Informational Item
❑ Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 C/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
� O
J 4 .,�-, _ '0 Legal El Minutes
EST. �� � 1836 Finance ❑
'-- Engineer ❑
Tracking Number
�� r1 City Administrator ❑
O Public Works ❑
724114t.E
a
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Minutes of the Economic Development Committee—June 7, 2011
Meeting and Date: EDC—July 5, 2011
Synopsis:
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: Action Taken:
Item Number:
Type of Vote Required: Majority
Council Action Requested: Committee Approval
Submitted by: Minute Taker Clerk's Office
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
DRAFT
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday,June 7, 2011, 6:30pm
City Conference Room
In Attendance:
Committee Members
Chairman Marty Munns
Alderman Chris Funkhouser
Alderman Jackie Milschewski
Alderman Diane Teeling (arr. 6:40pm)
Other City Officials
City Administrator Bart Olson
Community Development Director Krysti Barksdale-Noble
Building Code Official Paul Zabel
Other Guests
Jeremy Canavan, Fire Marshal, BKFD
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Marty Munns at 6:30pm.
Minutes for Correction/Approval March 7, 2011
The minutes were approved as read.
Items Recommended by Plan Commission for Approval: None
New Business
1. EDC-11 Building Permit Report for February & March 2011
For information only—there were no comments.
2. EDC 2011-18 Building Permit Report for April 2011
Information only—there were no comments.
3. EDC 2011-12 Building Inspection Report Summary for February and March 2011
Mr. Zabel said these reports were developed about a year ago and are broken down by
category, the person inspecting and a list of re-inspections. Plumbing reviews are
outsourced to a private company.
4. EDC 2011-19 Building Inspection Report Summary for April 2011
There were no comments.
1
(out of sequence)
8. EDC 2011-20 Building Code Update Committee Proposed Recommendations
Fire Marshal Jeremy Canavan from BKFD was present. He recently chaired a committee
that reviewed building codes. He said he had received recommendations from City Staff
and also wished to discuss home sprinkler codes as they relate to the international code.
Ms. Barksdale-Noble gave an overview of the building code review. The committee was
formed in July 2010 and updated each of the 10 codes that the International Code Council
sets forth. The City wished to move forward to the 2009 codes. The committee
developed recommendations that will be presented in a Public Hearing.
Mr. Canavan said there were 3 issues that the committee wished to have addressed:
1. False alarm fees: Mr. Canavan said he prefers the education approach to deal with
repeated false alarms, but he explained that each false alarm costs the Fire
Department money and a proposed false alarm fee schedule will be presented to the
Council at a future date.
2. Light-weight trusses: The State has a light-weight truss act that would ask a business
to display a$15 sign to inform firefighters at the time of a fire, if light-weight trusses
were used. This would determine how the fire is treated.
3. Storage facilities: Some have live-in caretakers who can call for assistance in the
event of a fire. The committee said complete fire alarm systems are not needed in
these facilities.
The most debated issue in the committee was the residential fire sprinklers. The 2009
IRC says all newly constructed family dwellings are required to have sprinklers.
However, some communities do not comply. Builders do not favor this because the costs
become greater with the average cost of home sprinklers being $4500. It was noted that
the sprinklers are zoned so not all turn on at the same time and they are heat-activated.
Krysti said direction will be needed from staff about committee recommendations. The
EDC committee will review the sprinkler material presented and discuss at a future
meeting.
The Property Maintenance Code addressed mounds of dirt in unfinished subdivisions.
Recommendations were made to fence off these mounds if 10 feet tall or to level them.
Also, recommendation was made to exempt residential minimum heating standard. A 65
degree minimum was recommended,however, 68 degrees is in the code.
Ms. Barksdale-Noble said the Code Update committee suggested an informational
meeting for residents should be held prior to a Public Hearing. The EDC committee
members decided the proposed updates should move directly to Public Hearing.
2
5. EDC 2011-13 Digital Billboard Signs-Discussion
In previous budget discussions, the City wanted to explore billboards as a way to
generate revenue. Media companies were contacted and expressed some interest.
$20,000 per site could be generated if leased. Kendall Marketplace was one of the
suggested sites. A State permit is required and the signs can only be located in a
commercial or manufacturing zone. Pole signs were recommended over placing them on
buildings since most Yorkville buildings are not over 80 feet tall. Possible uses include
public service announcements and Amber Alerts.
Chairman Munns recommended obtaining additional information. Alderman Teeling
said she was not in favor of these signs, however, all committee members requested more
information. Krysti suggested a possible presentation by a billboard company.
6. EDC 2011-15 Zoning Commission —Status Update
This commission has updated 11 chapters of the City ordinances. Ms. Barksdale-Nobl.e
requested feedback from this committee on the PUD chapter to streamline the process
when building resumes. Two items were added to this code: 1) Statutes require
developer to come back in one year if development is not final platted. An extension
must be filed. 2) If site is undeveloped within 3 years, the City can revoke the PUD
thereby un-encumbering land and making it available for others. The current revision
also allows a developer to take the concept directly to City Council for input and also
removes a Park Board review. This item will move to Public Hearing at an upcoming
City Council meeting.
7. EDC 2011-16 Foreclosure Update Report for March and April 2011
For info only.
(8. discussed earlier in meeting)
9. EDC 2011-21 Dormant Zoning Application/Petitions-Discussion
Krysti reviewed old development applications from 3 or 4 years ago for which deposits
are being held. A procedure is needed to release these deposits and the City Attorney
developed a policy and ordinance. Alderman Funkhouser suggested this policy should
only apply to those developments that have not broken ground.
10. EDC 2011-22 Development Fee Research -Discussion
Ms. Barksdale-Noble said some developers had approached the City saying that other
towns were being more developer-friendly in regards to reduced fees. She compared the
fee structure of the City and some surrounding towns and asked the committee if they
wished to reduce the fees. Plainfield and Sugar Grove have removed some fees and
reduced others. She also did a comparison of sanitary fees,however, YBSD would snake
this decision. Alderman Funkhouser said reducing the fees would encourage more
development. The committee members agreed to a recommendation for reduction in
fees.
Bart Olson said land cash is most likely too high at this time. The land cash is a policy
decision that also affects the schools, according to Administrator Olson.
3
Ms. Barksdale-Noble also mentioned other incentive ideas that some communities have
implemented such as streamlining the engineering process, rebates and deferrals in fees.
Suggestions for these reductions will be brought back next month.
11. EDC 2011-23 EDC Meeting Date and Time
The committee will continue to meet on Tuesdays at 6:30pm.
Old Business
None
Additional Business
• The City Council goals/staff on the bottom of the meeting agendas will be removed.
• Chairman Munns said liaisons are needed for Plan Commission, County Plan
Commission and YEDC.
There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 8:08pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by
Marlys Young
4
Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
ZO ;<; 0 Legal ❑ NB #1
rt
esr. s� lass Finance ❑
>�� Engineer ❑
City Administrator ❑ Agenda Item Tracking Number
Consultant El EDC 2011-24
City Council Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Monthly Permit Activity Report (May 2011)
Meeting Agenda Date: EDC /July 5, 2011
Synopsis: All permits issued in the month of May 2011.
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: N/A
Item Number: N/A
Type of Vote Required: Informational
Council Action Requested: None.
Submitted by: Krysti Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
See attached report.
NNE`
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
BUILDING PERMIT REPORT
ply May 2011
TYPES OF PERMITS
Number of SFD SFA Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Misc. Construction Permit
Permits SNg/c.Fanulp Sin..gh:Aamily ,apartments Cost Fees
Issued D11,01ing Alt-whei Condominiums Commercial
May 2011 91 6 0 0 is 0 67 5,063,416.00 67,225.82
Calendar Year 221 12 0 0 44 0 165 7,058,334.00 141,834.20
2011
Fiscal Year 2011 91 6 0 0 18 0 67 5,063,416.00 67,225.82
May 2010 70 3 6 0 8 0 53 I 1,749,142.00 92,515,28
I
Calendar Year 246 19 6 0 40 0 181 14,256,282.00 245,199.28
2010
Fiscal Year 2010 70 3 6 0 8 0 53 1,749,142.(H) 92,515.25
Mav 2009 68 3 0 0 9 0 56 7,441,009.00 101346.18
Calendar Year 226 13 0 0 70 0 143 1 3,732,906,()0 2,40,791.40
2009
Fiscal Year 2009 68 3 0 0 9 0 56 7,441,0(Y).n(1 101,346.18
May 2008 113 12 8 0 26 0 67 31,630,058.00 256,512.501
Calendar Year 393 43 22 0 143 0 185 49,934,621,00 841,463.67
2008
Fiscal Year 2008 113 12 2 0 26 0 67 31,630,058.00 256,512.50
P:,.Building Dept REPORTS',Building Pennit Reports;Building Pcmiit Repors...Fiscal 2010-201 1'.Bldg Permil Report May 201 I.dOc
D C/ry Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
O
Legal ❑ NB #2
esT jass Finance ❑
Engineer ❑ Agenda Item Tracking Number
City Administrator Is
��. Gl Consultant ❑
EDC 2011-25
KerAali County p�
V ❑
tCCE
City Council Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Monthly Inspection Report Summary(May 2011)
Meeting Agenda Date: EDC /July 5, 2011
Synopsis: All inspections performed in the month of May 2011.
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: N/A
Item Number: N/A
Type of Vote Required: Informational
Council Action Requested: None.
Submitted by: Krysti Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
See attached report.
DATE: 06/27/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: i
TIME: 15:18:31 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A000O.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 05/01/2011 TO 05/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED, COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - --------
DB 10:30 002-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20100129 2389 IROQUOIS LN 6 05/12/20111
JD _ 038-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20100233 2262 EMERALD DR 47 OS/19/2011
Commentsl: REINSPECTION
OD 035-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20100369 2351 EMERALD LN 106 05/19/011
Commentsl: RE-INSPECTION
PZ PM 004-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20100395 1015 BRIDGE ST 05/05/2011
DB AM 017-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20100429 762 OMAHA DR 44 05/04/2011
DB AM 018-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 05/04;2011
DB AM 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 05/06/203.7.
PZ PM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20100432 101 S BRIDGE ST 05/05/2011
JD 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20100475 2285 EMERALD LN 53 05/19/2011
Commentsl: REINSPECTION
JD 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20100496 2325 EMERALD LN 101 05/19/2011
Commentsl: RE-INSPECTION
PZ PM 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20100513 2556 EMERALD LN 3 05/12/2011
BF 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 05/16/2011
Commentsl: LOT 3 AUTUMN CREEK, LEE 847-875-7057
IYD 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 05/16/2011
DB AM 002-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 20100524 1004 WESTERN LN 80 05/18/2011
PZ PM 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20100553 2343 LAVENDER WAY 86 05/09/2011
BF 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 05/09/2011
JD 020-EFL ENGX14EERING - FINAL INSPE 05/17/2011
JD 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20100554 2333 LAVENDER WAY 85 05/19/2011
PZ PM 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 04/26/2011
BF 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 05/26/2011
JD 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20100555 2353 LAVENDER WAY 87 05/19/2011
DB 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20100615 414 E SOMONAUK ST 29 05/02/2011
Printed with FinePrint - purchase at www.fineprint.com
DATE: 06/27/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE; 2
TIME: 15:18:31 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4AO000.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 05/01/2011 TO 05/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP,
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
------- ----------------------------------------------I -'-------------- -------------^--------------------------------------------
PZ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20100623 469 KELLY AVE 113 05/26/2011
BF 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 05/20/2011
DB 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 05/24/011
DB 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20100628 1876 WILD INDIGO LN 78 05/24/2011
PZ PM 005-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110018 76 W COUNTRYSIDE PKWY 3 05/16/2011
BF PM 006-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 05/16/2011
Commentsl: PETE 630-816-1142
JD 008-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20110020 1585 CORAL DR 162 05/06/2011
PZ PM 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 05/09/2011
PZ PM 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 05/09/2011
PZ PM 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 05/09/2011
BF 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 05/09/2011
DB 013-INS INSULATION 05/13/2011
PZ PM 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20110021 2548 EMERALD LN 4 05/09/2011
PZ PM 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 05/09/2011
PZ PM 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 05/09/2411
BF 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 05/09/2011
DB 013 INS INSULATION 05/11/2011
BF 11:00 003 PLF PLUMBING - FI14AL 20110034 101 W VA14 EMMON ST 05/11/2011
PZ 12:30 004-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 05/19/011
PZ 10:00 005-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 05124/2011
Commentsl: RE-INSPECTION
PZ 1D:00 AM 007-INS INSULATION 20110039 1211 WILLOW WAY 207 05/04/2011
DB 14:00 002-BKF BACKFILL 20110040 366 BERTRAM DR 1037 05/04/2011
DB 14:00 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 05/05/2011
Printed with FinePrint - purchase at www.fineprint.com
DATE: 06/27/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3
TIME: 15:1B:31 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A0000.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 05/01/2011 TO 05/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
-------------------------- --------------- -----------^- ----------------- -------------------- -----------------------
DB 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 05/06/2011
Commentsl: REINSPECTION
BF 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 05/11/2011
DB 08:00 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 05/13/2011
DB 08:00 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 05/13/2011
DB 08:00 008-STP STOOP 05/13/011
DB 13.00 002-BKF BACKFILL 20110041 345 BERTRAM DR 1106 05/04/2011
DB 14:00 003 ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 05/05/2011
DB 004 ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER J WAT 05/06/2011
Commentsl: REINSPECTIONS
BF 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 05/11/2011
DB 08:00 006 BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 05/13/2011
DB 08:00 007-STP STOOP 05/13/2011
DB 08:00 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 05/13/2011
DB 08:00 009-STP STOOP 20110042 392 BERTRAM DR 1031 05/13/2011
BF 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 05/26/011
PZ PM 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 05/26,/2011
PZ PM 012-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 05/26/2011
PZ PM 013-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 05/26/2011
DB 11:00 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20110055 225 WINDETT RIDGE RD 44 05/04/2011
DB 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 05/13/2011
PZ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110067 1849 ASTER DR 96 05/25/2011
DB AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20110071 2388 IROQUOIS LN 30 05/11/2011
PZ 11:00 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110074 643 WHITE OAK WAY 13 05/09/2011
PZ 10:30 001-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 20110096 943 HAYDEN OR 123 05/10/2011
Printed with FinePrint- purchase at www.fineprint.com
DATE: 06/27/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4
TIME: 15:18:31 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4AOOOO.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 05/01/2011 TO 05/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DB 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110100 1964 CONEFLOWER CT 149 05/05/2011
DB AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110101 1964 CONEFLOWER CT 149 05/05112011
PZ PM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110102 1315 WILLOW WAY 221 05/05/2011
DB 08:30 001-FTG FOOTING 20110104 1562 CORAL DR 182 05/03/201'.
DB 09:00 002-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 05/06/2011
DB 13:00 003-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 05/20/011
BF PM 001-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 20110105 1562 CORAL DR 182 05/04/011
PZ PM 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 05/04/2011
PZ PM 003-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 05/04/2011
PZ PM 004-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 05/04/2011
DB 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110106 1524 CORAL DR 117 05/05/2011
PZ 13:00 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110110 2691 BURR ST 90 05/02/2011
PZ PM 001-BND POOL BONDING 20110111 863 WESTERN LN 137 05/09/2011
PZ PM 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110112 689 DENISE CT 40 05/12/2011
DB PM 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20110117 701 TERI LN 15 05/24/2011
PZ PM 001-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 20110116 2665 N BRIDGE ST 7 05/31/2011
PZ PM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 05/31/2011
BF 003-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 05/31/2011
PZ 004-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 05/31/2011
DB 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20110119 2735 CRANSTON CIR 127 05/19/2011
DB 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20110120 811 TERI LN 28 05/09/2011
PZ PM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 05/12/2011
DB 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 05/18/2011
DB 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110121 2901 ELLSWORTH DR 414 05/02/2011
Printed with FinePrint-purchase at www.fineprint.com
DATE: 06/27/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5
TIME: 15:18:31 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A000O.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 05/01/2011 TO 05/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
----------------------^- ------------------------------------------------------------------_---------------------------------------
DB AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110125 742 GREENFIELD TURN 103 05/2"'2011
PZ 14:00 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110126 802 HAMPTON LN 203 05/04;'2011
DB 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110127 2582 LYMAN LOOP 64 05/05%2011
PZ PM 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20110129 1341 CHEST14UT CIR 21 05/03/2011
DB PM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 05/17/2011
DB 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110133 402 WINTERBERRY OR 105 05/19/2011
DB 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 201103.36 2279 EMERALD LN 52 05/03/011
DB 06:00 001-FTC FOOTING 20110141 2323 EMERALD LN 38 051117/2011
DB 002-BKF BACKFILL 05/23/2011
DB 11:00 003-E5W ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 05/26/2011
DB 003-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20110143 494 WINTERBERRY DR 92 05/06/2011
Commentsl: REINSPECTXON
DB 13:00 001-PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 20110146 421 FAIRHAVEN DR 32 05/26/2011
DB 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20110149 1127 GRACE DR 61 05/13/2011
DB 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110150 1533 CORAL DR 171 OS/05/2011
DS AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110156 865 HOMESTEAD DR 106 05/05/2011
PZ PM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20110158 728 E VETERANS PKWY 105 & 05/16/2011
PZ PM 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 05/16/2011
DB 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110159 2486 CATALPA TR 179 05/12/2011
DB 11;00 001-FTG FOOTING 20110161 4554 GARDINER AVE 1132 05/18/2011
DB PM 002-BKF BACKFILL 05/23/2011
DB AM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 05/25/2011
BF 009-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 05/31/2011
DB 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110166 1805 COUNTRY HILLS DR 140 05/03/2011
DB 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20110167 904 HEARTLAND DR 165 05/09/2011
Printed with FinePrint - purchase at www.fineprint.com
DATE: 06/27/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE; 6
TIME: 15:18:31 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A0000.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 05/01/2011 TO 05/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
-------------------------------------------------------`--_`------------------------------------------------------------------------
DB PM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 05/19/2011
DB AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110168 304 W KENDALL DR 6 05/04/2011
DB 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20110169 1565 ORCHID ST 191 05/17/:011
DB 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 05/23/2011
DB 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110171 883 CANYON TP, 120 05/05/2011
DB 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20110172 2765 ELDEN DR 262 05/16/2011
DB 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 05/24/2011
DB 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110174 2306 LAVENDER WAY 99 05/17/2011
DB :00 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110177 2102 BLUEBIRD LN 256 05/04/2011
DB 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110181 407 BP.UELL ST 05/09/2011
DB 14:00 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20110182 206 BURNETT ST 1233 05/17/2011
PZ AM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 05/20/011
DB 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20110183 4542 HARRISON ST 1119 05/24/2011
DB 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110193 303 SANDERS CT 2 05/25/2011
DB 11:00 001-FTG FOOTING 20110196 4632 PLYMOUTH AVE 992 05/31/2011
DB 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110203 406 SANDERS CT 10 05/24/2011
DB AM 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20110206 529 W BARBERRY CIR 40 05/23/2011
DB 11:00 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20110207 903 ADRAIN ST 14 05/23/2011
DB 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110211 2433 ALAN DALE LN 130 05/27/2011
DB AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110212 BB CROOKED CREEK DR 10 05/24/2011
DB PM 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20110215 1974 CONEFLOWER CT 150 05/31/2011
DB 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110217 608 BEHRENS 05/23/2011
DB 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110220 514 W WASHINGTON ST 11 05/24/2011
DB 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110228 549 W BARBERRY CIR 15 05/27/2011
Printed with FinePrint - purchase at www.fineprint.com
DATE: 06/27/2011 UNI'T'ED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7
TIME: 15:19:31 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A0000.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 05/01/2011 TO 05/31/2011
I14SPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DB 001-PH POST HOLES / PILES 20110232 352 WESTWIND DR 9 05/31/2011
DB AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20110235 2182 HIGH RIDGE LN 97 05/31/2011.
PZ PM 001 REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 20110240 131 E. HYDRAULIC STREET 05/31/2011
PZ 002 RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 05/31/2011
PZ 003-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 05/31/2011
DB PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 2.0110248 356 TWINLEAF TR 66 05/26!2011
PZ 11:00 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20110252 145 E VETERANS PKWY 05/27/2011
Printed with FinePrint- purchase at www.fineprint.com
DATE: 06/7/2011 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8
TIME: 15:19:31 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A0000.WOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 05/01/2011 TO 05/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
--------- •-- --------------------- ---•------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------
PERMIT TYPE SUMMARY: ADD ADDITION 4
AGP ABOVE-GROUND POOL 3
EDO COMMERCIAL BUILD-OUT 2
BSM BASEMENT REMODEL 5
CCO COMMERCIAL OCCUPANCY PERMIT I
CRM COMMERCIAL REMODEL 1.2
DCK DECK 23
FNC FENCE 6
OTH OTHER 3
PRG PERGOLA 2
PTO PATIO / PAVERS 17
POP ROOFING 4
SFD SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED 58
SHD SHED 6
WIN WINDOW REPLACEMENT 1
INSPECTION SUMMARY: BKF BACKFILL 4
END POOL BONDING 1
BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 2
EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPECTION 9
EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 2
ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WATER 7
FIN FINAL INSPECTION 27
FTG FOOTING 4
GAR GARAGE FLOOR 2
INS INSULATION 3
PH POST HOLES / PILES 15
PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 1
PLF PLUMBING - FINAL 6
PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 5
PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 3
PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 21
PPW PRE-POUR, WALL STEEL 2
REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL S
RFR ROUGH FRAMING 15
RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 6
STP STOOP 3
TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC) 1
INSPECTOR SUMMARY: BF B&F TECHNICAL CODE SERVICE 14
DB DARRELL BUSCH 82
JD JACKIE DEARBORN 9
PZ PAUL ZABEL 42
STATUS SUMMARY: A PZ 1
Printed with FinePrint - purchase at www.fineprint.com
DATE: 06/27/2011 UNITED CITY OF' YORKVILLE PAGE: 9
TIME: 15:18:31 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORT
ID: PT4A0000.kOW
INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 05/01/2011 TO 05/31/2011
INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP.
TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE
--- ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------`-------------------
C BF 1
C DB 30
C PZ 7
I BF 12
I DB 51
I JD 5
I PZ 33
BF 1
T DB 1
T JD 4
T PZ 1
REPORT SUMMARY: 147
Printed with FinePrint- purchase at www.fineprint.com
Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
0-� Legal ❑ NB #3
i Finance ❑
EST. 1836
'— Engineer El Tracking Number
City Administrator ❑
Public Works El 2011-26
El
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Transportation to Water Park Ideas
Meeting and Date: EDC–July 5, 2011
Synopsis:
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: Action Taken:
Item Number:
Type of Vote Required:
Council Action Requested:
Submitted by: Alderman Munns
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
C/Tr Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
Legal ❑ OB #1
f
EST 1836 i - _ Finance El
— Engineer El-�� Tracking Number
�C r City Administrator C7
Consultant ❑
AAA EDC 2011-13
KornMlCWn;Y V� ❑
kE X1•`°`0
Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Digital Billboard Sign - Discussion
Meeting and Date: EDC–July 5, 2011
Synopsis: Research compiled by staff at the request of the City Council regarding potential
zoning provisions and revenue expected if LED digital billboard signs are permitted.
Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: 6/7/11 Action Taken: Discussion
Item Number: EDC 2011-13
Type of Vote Required: None
Action Requested: Direction
Submitted by: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
See attached staff memo.
C/T O
Memorandum
EST. :i -,.., 1836
To: Economic Development Committee,
From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
• � CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator
CkE `,��. Date: June 30, 2011
Subject: Digital LED Billboard Sign Research
Per the consensus of the Economic Development Committee at last month's meeting,
staff was asked to compile additional revenue information and visual depictions regarding digital
LED billboard signs. Since that meeting, staff met with a representative from Clear Channel
Outdoor Media Company to discuss aesthetic impacts, potential benefits to local business, and
projected revenue generation for the City should we permit digital billboard signs on city-owned
property. Attached is a recently published media kit prepared by Clear Channel specifically for
the Chicago-land market which depicts various locations and vivid illustrations of local digital
billboard media throughout the area.
With regards to potential revenue for the City, staff is still researching billboard sign
lease agreements other local municipalities have entered into with Clear Channel and other
outdoor advertising companies to provide a reasonable revenue projection.
Potential Discussion Topics
Staff would like to discuss the following topics with the EDC for input and direction:
• Is a short-tern (5-10 years) or long-term(15-20 years) lease agreement desired?
• Should a threshold regarding the number of billboard signs be considered when
negotiating the lease(e.g. no less than 2,but no more than 4, etc.)?
• Are some locations within the city more appropriate and/or desirable than others for
billboard signs?
• Should only single-sided billboards be considered?
• Options for promoting economic development for local businesses with advertising on
the billboard sign?
� 1 DIGITAL MEDIA 'KIT
� Clear Channel. [lUT�QOR :: CHICAGQ NATIQIVA�
y A
JjJflr
/ J1
VA
UT WOWS.
ClearChannel'
rrr . r.r•
DIGITAL OUTDOOR 773.843.2000
i
WHY DIGITAL?
The Chicago Market offers multiple National Networks that can be customized to meet your needs.Each network offers
high profile expressways and major thoroughfares units.
• You will reach consumers across the Chicago DMA.
• You will reach consumers 24/7 while they work,shop and play.
Each Digital display message can be controlled by content and image feeds from a Web or RSS source,or manually by
the client or Clear Channel office.
Content can be fed anytime during the day or evening keeping your message current and relative to market conditions,
demographics,day parts,inventory,importance to your business or interests to your consumer.
•
M
FEATURES / BENEFITS
• Immediate delivery of your targeted messages to impact your audience.
• Ability to update your own messages in real time to engage your consumers.
• Unparalleled flexibility to target and adapt your messages to the exact audience you are trying to reach.
• Unlimited creative executions to showcase every aspect of your product,services and image.
• Premium,personalized services for designing,scheduling and monitoring to help you tap into the
power of digital.
E
0
ClearChanne[
`� DIGITAL OUTDOOR
1 LAST MINUTE UPDATES -
st a.1
t
DYNAMIC CONTENT TIME-SENSITIVE MESSAGING
ULTIMATE'�" TONIG�iill6�Ilre HD s
�'pCAY"S HIGH 1k p _ •+�
SCOTi5tF4lf-�I U
r
FLEXIBILITY
UNLIMITED CREATIVE EXECUTIONS
rf- ,# ClearChannel'
6:w� DIGITAL OUTDOOR
DIGITAL OUTDOOR GARNERS ATTENTION
& DRIVES CONSUMERS TO TAKE ACTION
Percentage of people who report that Percentage of people who report that
advertising on the media catches their attention. advertising on the media was interesting.
Digital Signage • 63% Digital Signage • 53%
Magazine • 57% TV • 51%
TV• 56% Magazine• 51%
Internet• 47% Internet• 34%
Newspaper• 40% Radio• 33%
Radio • 37% Newspaper• 33%
Mobile Phone • 10% ■
Base:Among those who have seen ads in the media in the past 12 months. Base:Among those who have seen ads in the media in the past 12 Nl,AKE AN
M
Percentage of people who took some action as Digital billboards ...
a result of seeing advertising on digital Signage.
...are a cool way to
Total Adults • 36% advertise • 64%
Ages 18 24 • 51% ... have current and
9 relevant information 54/°
Ages 25-34 • 41% ... provide useful
Ages 35-44 • 37% information • 46%
.. are a good way to learn
Ages 45-55 • 16% about new products • 44%
Base:Persons 18 years+living in the Cleveland.OH.Metro alu
Base:Among those who have seen ads in the media m the past 12 moisths' who traveled on 1-77.1-90.1-271 or 1-480 in the past 30 da
ClearChannel-
DIGITAL OUTDOOR
Source: AAAA Digital Out-of-Home Media Awareness and Altitude Study 2007;Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study 2008
12 minutes to
One of the amazing things about the "y
Clear Channel Digital Outdoor Network
is how we can dynamically update
information from other sources and
incorporate it directly into your creative.
Interesting,relevant or time-sensitive facts Al
can be placed within your _
advertisement at the speed of the internet.
DYNAMIC CO
HOW IT WORKS
WHAT HOW
We can lift headlines from websites. Great for news organizations to post real time
information next to their logo or brand. As the website headline changes, so does
HEADLINES the digital billboard creative. If top headlines are not available from your site other
sources are available for us to include vital and relevant information.Some topics may
include headlines, business, real estate, entertainment, health, travel, politics, among
many others.
SPORTS SCORES Sports radio, sports bars, sports drinks or other related businesses can automatically
post scores from various games.
TIME / TEMP / A modern approach to an older idea.Show up-to-the-minute time,today's forecast or
TRAFFIC current road conditions.Great for any brand and a sure crowd pleaser.
If you have visual information that is automatically posted on a website, for instance
the progress of a new business location,Clear Channel Outdoor Digital billboards can
PICTURES dynamically lift those pictures and include them in your creative execution.As drivers
and pedestrians pass by the Digital Outdoor Network billboards,they will see the pro-
gression over time,making this a tremendous interest builder.
Have a venue where events are constantly being updated?New acts?New artists?New
UPCOMING EVENTS shows? Movie theaters,concert venues and a host of other businesses can benefit by
having new information posted dynamically.
i
ClearChannel'
DIGITAL OUTDOOR
0
DYNAMIC CO
HOW IT WORKS
• • . 'P'LEW00�
` TOY`OT �. A base piece of creative is designed
with consideration of space for dynamic
11 1"NE$IDWS#`� _ content (either text or imagery).
VOLUME 0EALX13
ti ��`a1Ma�M1 M- .i4i0'u lrs.ln•e�.�.w.... '^•Ir W*^.vv+�i ti
rY *AbP."to,.4 No" IN h Dynamic content is selected from a
clients website and pulled from the
\r..r, n.,;l 1.nY .' s . rcn:•`•,r.,:.w......,,r
...... ...n....�,��.r.,..
"~•` ..:.,a. HTML source directly.
i 1 . a+3..1.1•.1.•./•if
Y"Y.r.pVi 7f"lY11Y,+Yn 1MpN. N"
V. 1 • Y tu5•�f.•-.,:4,+,aa+.al+t.=.a..r...t--:..:.a
w YnN • er,...r e••r r.4f aaf...!-.....f.:te.s....,..
1 i � eN,Y.er•,.n•af'.,!.1•i.it a-..tsrt f.11 Kt.,,..:i.!
,wool stu
",yy, ..k M,�Y 1 ."«ar,.i..eaa.•r♦!tN•..r...^.s"1""f-r..- r
rf - 3The source data is incorporated
1
into the base creative,by Clear Channel,
and updates whenever the client source
changes...keeping the content timely
- and relevant.
E
0
u
J
H
ClearChannel'
DIGITAL OUTDOOR
U
r
WHAT IS OUTDOOR CONNECT?
Outdoor Connect is a web portal used to publish Dynamic Content.
Using Internet Explorer or FireFox, advertisers are able to upload •
their own headlines and images directly onto their digital billboard.
Outdoor Connect gives advertisers the ability to change copy live
throughout the day.
a,
HOW CAN OUTDOOR CONNECT BE USED?
Outdoor Connect allows an advertiser to:
• Type in their own headlines
• Upload photos (per approval)
• Control their own scheduling •
Outdoor Connect is ideal for advertising campaigns that feature
breaking news, live sports scores, social media, contests, and any
other to-be-determined content.
0"""l PTI)OOR CONNECT
STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1.Decide on a Vision 6.Set Up a Training Date
If possible, submit a mock up that describes how you A week prior to the start of your campaign, set up a
would like to use Dynamic Content.This can be just a training day where our Digital Manager can give you
low resolution)PEG or sketch.Clear Channel Outdoor brief instruction on how to use the software: how
has a nationwide collection of technical resources and to type in headlines, upload photos, rearrange your
the more we know about your ideal program,the bet- broadcast schedule, etc. It is recommended that this
ter we can find solutions to implement it. training be done at
Clear Channel so
2.Sign a Contract Addendum that we are able to
The use of Outdoor Connect requires signature to view a test monitor
a liability addendum. Sign this document with your as the changes take
proper business name and return it to your Account place.
Executive. =-
3.Know Your Fonts -- --
Fonts used to display Dynamic Content must be
owned by Clear Channel Outdoor. We have licenses
to over 2,000 fonts from the Adobe Font Folio 11.0 ,:4 ,
collection. If you prefer your Dynamic Content to be
in a typeface outside of this collection,let us know as
early as possible. A non-Clear Channel font will need
to be purchased once for each billboard your message
will be displayed on.
4.Submit Base Scene,Mock Up and Safety Scene _
All Dynamic Content requires a template and
description.
RECOMMENDED TIME LINE
S.Receive a Username a Password Week 1 discuss your vision with CCO
Clear Channel Outdoor will provide you with a user- Week 2 sign addendum&receive username/password
name and password which allows you access to the Week 3 training session with your staff
Outdoor Connect website. Week 4 your campaign goes live
r ClearChannel'
`� DIGITAL OUTDOOR
brewed in the windy city R i
Bpi
Chicago has been called a lot of things over the years. Carl Sandburg called it the "city of big
shoulders," a tribute to the steelworkers and meat packers of earlier days. Today, Chicago is
ranked third in the DMA and is the major metropolitan center for the heart of the United States.
It's looked at for its culture,sports,fashion,commerce and entertainment venues.
The city's cultural background can be best experienced by visiting the world famous Art
Institute,the Field Museum of Natural History,the Chicago Historical Society,Chicago Symphony
Orchestra and the Adler Planetarium. By taking a stroll through the downtown area one can
admire more than 200 public sculptures by artists including Picasso,Miro and Chagall.
Chicago style seems to be everything from pizza, hot dogs and blues to architecture
and politics. No matter what the subject, no matter what the situation, Chicagoans
seem to do things with their own distinct flair, creating innovations and developing
trends that extend far beyond the borders of this great city. From Lake Michigan
to the architectural award winning Chicago Tribune building, the Willis Tower to
Wrigley Field,many of Chicago's attractions are viewed by more than 15 million people each year.
DIGITAL CHICAGO
Via Midway or O'Hare International (one of the world's busiest airports),Chicago continues to
be a popular destination for many international travelers. McCormick Place and Navy Pier are
making Chicago one of the nation's largest conventional cities. This large and diverse city is many
things at once-a blue-collar town that's full of high culture and gracious living,while also a classic
Midwestern city with international presence.
Clear Channel Outdoor has handpicked Chicagoland locations for our Digital Outdoor Network
to reach commuters on heavily traveled expressways and thoroughfares. Advertisers can now
communicate with their audience directly and instantaneously!
I i
i
ClearChannel'
.� +1 DIGITAL OUTDOOR
G-G-G-GET ME OU77A HERE,
I
ammm m cQum N,am rim GAY a
d
r �
dp I, ;
CHICAGO
ABC General Mills
Arby's General Motors
AT&T H&M
Blue Cross Blue Shield Home Depot
BP IKEA
Burger King Loyola Health Systems
Cadillac Lowes
CBS McDonald's
CHICAGO Caribou Coffee NBA
Carnival Cruise Line NBC
DIGITAL 1 • ' Clear Wire New Line Cinema
Coca-Cola Northwestern University
NETWORK Comcast Notre Dame University
Coors Brewing Co. Office Depot
Crate&Barrel Paramount Home Video
CW Network Popeye's
Disney Sony Television
E!Entertainment Super Value
ESPN Taco Bell
Fifth Third Bank Time Warner Cable E
Ford U.S.Marines o
FOX TV Yahoo
' f-
ClearChannel` o
DIGITAL OUTDOOR 0
l �
' ■
DIGITAL BULLETINS
Digital Bulletins give marketers significant creative flexibility and up-to-the-moment message
opportunities by providing the ability to immediately customize time-relevant messages to
consumers as often as advertisers'needs dictate. High impact locations are strategically placed
throughout the market to give advertisers tremendous reach to execute both general market
and targeted advertising campaigns that consumers can't mute,fast forward or erase.
FEATURES / BENEFITS
Flexibility — Customize and adapt your digital program to meet time-sensitive needs.
Accommodates multiple creative executions and immediate copy changes.
Efficiency—Ability to react to what works. Eliminates time and printing costs.
Community Dialogue — Build ongoing interactive relationships with consumers by
creating intrigue and anticipation.
High Reach— High impact locations are strategically placed throughout our markets.
High Frequency—Our networks deliver repeated exposures for increased impact.
Innovation—This new technology is transforming the industry into the most flexible and
responsive of all advertising platforms.
i
E
0
r� ClearChannel' �?
DIGITAL OUTDOOR
o
• � i
� A
i
METRA- DIGITAL
Advertising in the Metra stations has long been the best way to reach the suburban rail
commuter who chooses not to drive. This display, located in the most premium position in
the Citigroup Center, provides maximum flexibility with changeable messaging.We can tie your
advertising into the CCO Chicago Digital Network to include downtown Chicago coverage or
use this display as a standalone for your targeted Metra programs.
This unique display rotates static messages and has the capability to stream video.
Your campaign possibilities are truly endless with this menu of creative options. Now is the
time to reach one of Chicago's most desirable consumer group: the upscale, suburban
professional with digital innovation.
Unit Size: H 5'9" x W 19'9", proportionate to all CCO digital bulletins
File Size: H 400 pixels x W 1400 pixels, proportionate to all CCO digital bulletins
Display: 10 mm
Video: H 178 pixels x W 608 pixels, 30 frames per second, H264 or Flash format
Opportunity: Static display messages or full motion video
I
ClearChannel'
DIGITAL OUTDOOR
i
NATIONAL NETWORK 1
104EXECUTPA AWG+MT
}L
IV 7
BCFNLf�lAi6RE0X7N L`AY7PO�ST � T, `�� _;
T-
LAS
T
4o►Anc r j-
CMAG<T AY AgMWST� � -i
4F7 �'
1
eloaircn;iuiPMT
LE"�tsevEwu„jmraEo-n' r��. -
1I
t
7_
CA M
ClearChannel®
DIGITAL OUTDOOR
U
NATIONAL NETWORK 1
. DESCRIPTION .
3319 1-94 Edens Xwy.5 Mi W/O Waukegan SS West 195,043
153719 1-294 N Tri-State Tollway 600 ft S/O Central ES South 468,857
1646 1-294 N Tri-State Tollway 175 ft N/O North Av ES North 497,207
1496 1-55 Stevenson Xwy 1.1 Mi W/O 1-355 SS East 341,850
2295 I-57 Xwy 0.5 Mi N/O Sibley Blvd ES South 439,369
2292 Rt 53 600 ft S/O Rand Rd WS South 398,822
2024 1-294 N Tri-State Tollway 1000 ft N/O Grand Av ES South 659,406
2285 1-55 Stevenson Xwy 0.8 Mi E/O La Grange Rd NS West 509,665
2296 1-94 Bishop Ford Xwy 720 ft S/O 154th St WS South 392,659
1304 La Grange Rd.25 MI S/O I-55 Xwy WS South 224,882
2288 1-55 Stevenson Xwy 1.2 Mi E/O Harlem Av NS East 392,561
2227 I-294 S Tri-State Tollway.25 Mi N/O Santa Fe Dr WS North 587,348
1 667 1-80 1.1 Mi W/O Larkin Av NS East 119,060
2247 I-57 Xwy 170 ft N/O 123rd St ES North 388,562
2043 1-294 S Tri-State Tollway 150 ft S/O 107th St WS South 487,166
E
0
U
J
H
ClearChannel' �?
DIGITAL OUTDOOR
0
m
NATIONAL NETWORK 2
.W WtiY
S
MYI i MHK�
mow.... { t •,CNC�'GO c'nsn lm Not
GHr..W0 ac
1r A
%w
w� I-
t 64
�t. nva .iF .-4. I +.� � `�ww. C ? wa..n KOOK• I1. _
r
l71
�� ••ter � I_ -- .<''... - _ 1 O
i J
4
ClearChannel'
`� DIGITAL OUTDOOR
NATIONAL NETWORK 2
• . •
DESCRIPTION 3318 1-94 Edens Xwy.5 Mi W/O Waukegan SS East 147,032
2286 1-290 Eisenhower Xwy 145 ft W/O 1 st Av NS East 906,971
1497 1-55 Stevenson Xwy 1.1 Mi W/O 1-355 SS West 450,951
1645 1-294 Tri-State 50 ft S/O Midlothian Trnpk WS South 298,765
1664 Roosevelt Rd 424 ft W/O Ardmore NS West 149,867
2291 1-355 NS Tollway 64 ft N/O Lake St ES South 712,567
1662 1-294 S Tri-State Tollway 25 ft N/O 79th St ES North 268,295
1521 Rt 59 669 ft S/O Ferguson Rd ES North 78,619
1584 159th St 420 ft W/O 91 st t SS East 135,060
2284 I-80 Xwy 25 ft E/O Ashland Av SS West 600,855
rdm ClearChannel'
Lr,,d DIGITAL OUTDOOR
m
NATIONAL NETWORK 3
'� C Gf1.4AE Wry e'
. sv uWowcFCtal�rwlvva�- t•_i-1,8$J � +. -
�Yklo✓A ie Ci
I
LAO . ► e k....,......� �,,., �. y
J--8
PF
mlow
r J —
— u
N
ClearChannel'
`� DIGITAL OUTDOOR
NATIONAL NETWORK 3
DESCRIPTION
3320 1-294 N Tri-State Tollway 600 ft S/O Central ES North 367,872
1 647 1-294 N Tri-State Tollway 175 ft N/O North Av ES South 630,047
2287 1-55 Stevenson Xwy 1.2 Mi E/O Harlem Av NS West 455,014
1522 Rt 59 669 ft S/O Ferguson Rd ES South 102,686
1259 1-394 Calumet Xwy.85 Mi N/O Rt 30 Lincoln Hwy ES South 197.778
1665 Roosevelt Rd 424 ft W/O Ardmore NS East 193,740
2161 Rt 53 600 ft S/O Rand Rd WS North 531,762
2168 1-290 Eisenhower Xwy 145 ft W/O 1 st Av NS West 631,334
1303 La Grange Rd.25 Mi S/O I-55 Stevenson Xwy WS North 235,984
1668 1-80 1.1 Mi W/O Larkin Av NS West 88,268
2228 1-294 S Tri-State Tollway.25 Mi N/O Santa Fe Dr WS South 468,286
1585 159th St 420 ft W/O 91 st St SS West 170,447
E
0
U
J
F
ClearChannel*
.■ DIGITAL OUTDOOR 0
`J
U
STAND ALONE UNIT
" 7 j `I
173
t
r
. r ,
• •
DESUIPTION FACING •
2144 1-94 N Tri-State Tollway.35 Mi S/O Russell Rd ES South 310,510
E
O
a
ClearChannel`
4 _
DIGITAL OUTDOOR
iIIIIIIIIIIII
STAND ALONE UNIT
53.
L � ,l
•s ,:.t i s
1r Crag
`awrair.
sl _.
-
i
---•` 71 jf a ,w +. .+. 1 } _ —
• • DESCRIPTION I I •
I
METRA Inside Citigroup Center- 500 W.Madison NA 111,300-
E
0
U
J
ClearChannel®
DIGITAL OUTDOOR
Citigroup Center Metro Daily Ridership.
Source:Metro 2011 Program S Budget
# f
a
DIGITAL BULLETINS — 4 WEEK PROGRAM:
Your coverage includes high profile digital bulletins throughout the Chicago
market.You will receive a minimum of 900 ten second spots per board every day.
That's over 25,000 spots per board over a 4 week program.
DIGITAL METRA—4 WEEK PROGRAM:
Your coverage includes premium downtown exposure through our Metra
digital product. You will receive a minimum of 700 ten second spots per board every
day(5 a.m.-midnight).That's over 19,000 spots per board over a 4 week program.
CHICAGO nIGITAL PROGRAMS
DIGITAL CUSTOMIZED PROGRAM:
Use the unprecedented flexibility offered by the digital medium to create an
advertising package that matches your specific needs. From short-term promotional
events,to live updates in real time,to long-term exclusive sponsorship opportunities,
the digital platform provides cutting edge solutions for advertisers of every kind.
E
0
u
ClearChannel°
DIGITAL OUTDOOR
� V
U
i
DIGITAL CREATIVE
GUIDELINES & SPECS
SIMPLICITY IS THE KEY TO CREATING GREAT OUT-OF-HOME DESIGN.
A billboard's main purpose is functionality. Creating a billboard is mainly about making it
read. Even the best design is worthless if it is not legible from a distance. It is only after
legibility has been mastered that creativity can follow.
Although very similar,there are variances in designing for digital as opposed to tradi-
tional Out-of-Home. With that in mind, listed here are Clear Channel Outdoor's recom-
mended guidelines for designing a digital billboard.
MAKE THE TEXT LARGE
Outdoor designs should be simple, clear and easy to read. Digital Bulletins should be
legible from 500 feet away.
USE BOLD, NON-SERIF FONTS
Always use large,legible typefaces.At 500 feet,thin lines optically fade or break up. Avoid
decorative, italic, or serif fonts. As a general rule, upper and lower case sans serif fonts
provide the best readability. When designing for digital outdoor, we highly recommend
adding a thin dark stroke around the text to separate it from the background.
STICK TO ONE MESSAGE OR IDEA
Simplify everything. Don't present a complex message or numerous images. Have one
thing that you want your audience to do or to recognize. The best outdoor media reduces
a complex message to it's essential elements.
BE SHORT AND SWEET
Use no more than ten words total on the entire billboard — and that includes the logo/
product tagline. We recommend seven words or less for the headline. Keep the words
short for faster comprehension.
COLOR
Use only RGB color files for digital displays.
Design as you would for a website,TV or
computer monitor.
AVOID WHITE BACKGROUNDS
To achieve white,a combination of all three colors
must be turned on to their maximum brightness.
Consequently,white backgrounds will wash out
and compete with the remainder of your creative.
E
0
U
J
H
ClearChannela
`J
DIGITAL OUTDOOR 0
i
DIGITAL CREATIVE
USE BRIGHT, BOLD COLORS
Stick with fully saturated web-safe hues. Complimentary colors,such as red and green,are
not legible together because they have similar value. Contrasting color combinations work
best for viewing outdoor designs at far distances.
DESIGN WITH HIGH CONTRAST
Being subtle does not work at great distances. Strong contrast in both hue and value are
essential for creating good digital out-of-home.
f LAT OEM INID SPA(E
LIGHT
DEPTH_
White,beige or neutral backgrounds
won't work well - 0 �
PICK YOUR IMAGE WISELY
Take a small object and make it large (like a watch) rather than a large object small (like a
building). Avoid using landscapes or complex scenes. We recommend 3 visual elements
or less,total. For example: 1 image, 1 logo and 1 headline.
FORGET ABOUT WHITE SPACE
White space does not apply in Outdoor like in printed material. Increase your logo,font
sizes and imagery! Having unused visual space at 300- 500 feet is not recommended.
TEST YOUR IDEA
A billboard is not a print ad, the average viewing time is only about 5 seconds. A good
test is to show the design to someone from a distance for only 5 seconds and then ask
them about it. Did they understand it? Who was the advertiser? What do they think the
advertiser wants them to do?
DIGITAL PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS
FILE TYPE COLOR MODE ART PIXEL DIMENSIONS
Uncompressed JPG RGB Digital Bulletins-400h X 1400w {
r ClearChannel'
DIGITAL OUTDOOR
� r
DIGITAL CREATIVE SPECS
RI'll
400 ixels
1400 pixels
DIGITAL BULLETIN: FILE SIZE 400 pixels H x 1400 pixels W
�l
400 pixels DIGITAL POSTER
FILE SIZE
400 pixels H x 840 pixels W
840 pixels
400 pixels DIGITAL PREMIERE
FILE SIZE
400 pixels H x 764 pixels W
764 pixels
ALL DIGITAL FILES: FILE TYPE Uncompressed)PG COLOR MODE RGB
ClearChannel
. j � , DIGITAL OUTDOOR 8D;
Ct� Ty
O
Memorandum
EST. I 1836
To: Economic Development Committee
p� Irv'I%lx � �� From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator
<1-E ��-r' Date: March 24, 2011
Subject: Digital LED Billboard Sign Research
As requested during the March 22, 2011 City Council meeting budget discussion of
alternative sources of revenue and policy options, staff has briefly researched various zoning
regulations related to digital LED billboard signs. Below is a summary of that research and
potential city revenue generated should they be permitted in Yorkville.
Zoning & Regulatory Authority Research:
Digital light emitting diode (LED) billboard signs utilize technology similar to high
definition televisions, producing a vibrant digital color image allowing for changing billboard
copy. Currently, Section 8-11-7 of the city's code strictly prohibits billboard signs anywhere in
Yorkville. If that outright ban is lifted, the impact of permitting digital billboards along public
streets and in public areas can be problematic if not effectively regulated.
Upon review of various municipal ordinances recently passed, Title 92 of the Illinois
Administrative Code Part 522 (IDOT) and information presented by the Federal Highway
Administration in a memo dated September 25, 2007 (see attached), the primary areas for
regulating digital LED billboard signs are:
• Zoning District — Typically, billboard signs are permitted in non-residential
zoning districts. However, billboard signs located within 660 feet along a Federal-
Aid Primary (FAP) route are permitted only on property zoned and utilized for
commercial or industrial uses.' Yorkville has four (4) FAP routes: Illinois 126
(FAP 326), Illinois Route 71 (FAP 311), US Route 30 (FAP 349), and US Route
34 (FAP 591).Attached is a map ofpotential locations for digital billboard signs
on city-owned property located along a FAP route, some of which are currently
zoned for commercial or industrial uses.
• Luminosity/Brightness—most regulations established criteria for brightness levels
of digital billboards to decrease the risk of glare or driver distraction. An
acceptable maximum brightness for a digital billboard sign is no more than 0.3
foot-candles over ambient light levels measured within 150 feet of the sign.2
• Location — most ordinances determined the permissible location of digital LED
billboards based upon safety considerations of the motoring public (street
setbacks) and proximity to residential uses.
o Distance and Placement — there is typically a minimum distance
requirement between another billboard and a maximum number of
Title 92 Illinois Administrative Code 522 Subchapter f(Department of Transportation)
2 Illuminating Engineering Society of North America(IESNA)
billboards located within a linear mile along a roadway (regardless if on
they are on opposite sides of the roadway).
• Aesthetics/ Traffic Safety — both state and local ordinances reviewed establishes
criteria for billboard sign and display appearance. Similar to most standard sign
ordinances, most have bulk requirements and that the digital billboard sign not
have moving or oscillating parts,blinking lights and are structurally sound.
• Sign Area, Size and Height — billboard sign area or size is typically
measured by the surface area of the copy and usually does not exceed 500
square feet. The average height for billboard signs is 35 feet above grade.
• Length of Display Time & Transition between images — Digital billboard
images usually adhere to the industry standard of 8-10 seconds for display
time and transition between images within 2 seconds to minimize driver
distraction.3
Benefits to Local Businesses & Community
The economic impact to businesses within Yorkville should digital LED billboard signs
be permitted was also researched. Significant benefits to small and medium sized businesses
using digital LED billboards include: the flexibility to customize and update information in real-
time; increased visibility than traditional wall or ground-mounted signs; and the ability to
provide greater visual impact. They are also more cost-efficient than a conventional billboard,
since digital billboards displays are purchased in increments of time rather than by overall ad
space.
Digital billboards can also offer a public service. Some communities have partnered with
outdoor advertising companies to provide time and space for promoting government
programs/information or for emergency announcements, such as missing persons and disaster
alerts.
Potential City Revenue
Recently, there has been a renewed interest by some local governments to seek revenue
from digital billboard ads. Local governments may approach revenue stream from digital
billboards through building permit and inspection fees for sign construction; by collecting
leasing fees from advertisers who install the signs on city-owned property; excise or use tax on
revenue generated from ad sales; real estate taxes on assessed value of billboard signs; or a
combination of the above. Recent examples of revenue generated by cities from billboards
include:
• Los Angeles, CA — in October 2010, city council proposed a 12% excise tax on
billboards with an anticipated annual revenue stream of$24 million.
• Philadelphia, PA — in 2005, the city approved a 7% tax on billboards within the
city.
• New York, New York—in November 2010, estimated that$22 million in revenue
can be generated by collecting the lease fees for billboards located on city-owned
property and real estate revenue for privately-owned parcels with billboards.
3 Source: Outdoor Advertising Association of America,Inc.and the National League of Cities.
• Medford, MA—in June 2010 negotiated a deal with Clear Channel for a payment-
in-lieu-of-taxes agreement that will generate $50,000 annually for the next 25
years for the use of city-owned property along an interstate.
• Miami-Dade County — collects $220,000 in rental fees and 16% of the ad space
revenue from a supersized digital billboard located on a county-owned eight-story
building.
However, digital billboard signs have not been without controversy, as a recent article in the
February 2011 edition of PublicWorks'reports that seven (7) states and as many as 23 cities and
counties throughout the country have banned or are considering a moratorium on digital
billboards.
Staff Comments
The City has received offers of interest to install LED digital billboard signs along some State
routes in Yorkville. Staff is seeking direction from the EDC if we should pursue amending our
current sign regulations to permit digital billboard signs; and if so, solicit bids from outdoor
advertising companies to lease space on city-owned land for billboards.
4 www.i)wmag.com
Site ID PIN site address Acres N
1 02-32-277-001 - 1.76
2 02-29-201-006 - 0.52
3 02-29-202-006 - 10.96 s
4 05-05-443-016 - 4.37
5 02-04-300-005 4600 N Bridge St 2.10
6 05-04-402-010 1809 Country Hills Dr 2.05 d�
7 05-04-401-018 1908 Raintree Rd 0.25
8 05-03-380-001 1148 Hawk Hollow Dr 2.14Q
9 05-04-101-008 109 Colonial Pkwy 0.24
10 05-05-400-024 - 0.06 1
11 02-33-154-020 - 0.03 `------
_ �.r_.,.;
12 02-32-283-009 - 0.11 i -•-•-�
13 02-32-278-007 201 W Hydraulic Ave 0.46
14 02-33-154-022 - 0.47
15 02-33-153-006 131 E Hyd rau lic Ave 0.06
16 02-33-153-008 131/201 E Hydraulic Ave 2.12
17 02-33-154-009 - 0.09
18 02-21-301-002 - 1.22
19 02-28-351-011 610 Tower Ln 0.49 s '
20 02-29-427-002 910 Game Farm Rd 15.78 -- j
21 02-28-302-008 910 Game Farm Rd 7.47
22 02-30-203-002 1474 Sycamore Rd 3.53
23 02-30-101-002 1711 John St 8.07 - �- 1 I j 1--1 _
24 02-21-301-012 1975 N Bridge St 1.00 j j j '"" Imo•. •t-._.. ^•�r**�
25 02-28-351-020 610 Tower Ln 1.27 �* 1 a
26 05-04-151-026 185 Wolf St 2.65 -�•-
27 05-05-276-004 193 Wolf St 1.34 _ _ ' __---
-' i **
28 02-28-126-010 202 ECountryside Pkwy 4.55 •- - j �.•� 1
29 02-32-287-001 111 W Madison St 0.46 t I '`'•-----r;�
30 02-33-153-013 - 0.23 '�•.__•_ I ,�•• '•1.. �r'r''.:,
31 02-33-153-011 - 0.19 ... ,.�••��
32 02-33-104-001 301 N Bridge St 2.36
33 02-32-283-008 1 West Alley 0.02 �..�''�• `� �: t
34 02-30-101-001 1711 John St 8.72 ' ' •�-�� R,R
l' V.
4 L,1
J, -•-1 �.- 18
• .� 24 34
j 34 22 r, 28
1
34 71
23 j--- - - 21 i
25
31
- 1 1 32 30 14
13
16
� 33
15
12 29 17 I
rte• �•�'✓' T-- �'' �
1
27
10 i.,� 126 ,E
26 1
4
4�
1
1
1
r
.._.._.._.._.._.,_.._.
1
1 1
f
t� I
/ 47
u.
71
r
j I
j 1
Legend
j 660' Buffer of State Highways
City Properties Within Buffer
December 10•United City of Yorkville GIs
0 C/Ty Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number
Legal ❑ OB #2
Finance F-1
EST. '-- 1836
Engineer ❑
Agenda Item Tracking umber
-� a City Administrator ■ g
� ' 3.1
Consultant El-� K ,, , EDC 2011-22
�t.E � - ------- ❑
City Council Agenda Item Summary Memo
Title: Development Fees Report
Meeting and Date: EDC--July 5, 2011
Synopsis: Research and comparison of Yorkville's and surrounding municipalities impact fees,
building permit fees, land-cash donations &incentive programs for residential
development.
Council Action Previously Taken:
Date of Action: EDC 6/7/11 Action Taken: Discussion
Item Number: EDC 2011-22
Type of Vote Required:
Council Action Requested:
Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration
Name Department
Agenda Item Notes:
See attached information.
0 C/T`
0 Memorandum
To: City Council
EST. Z` _ — 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator
0 ,i
CC:
-''"�a a Date: July 1, 2011
E�o` Subject: Impact Fee Justification
This item was discussed at the last Economic Development Committee meeting. At that
meeting, the Committee asked staff to research the possibility of reducing the municipal building
impact fee.
When the municipal building impact fee was created, we assumed that we need two
Public Works facilities, a City Hall, and a Police Station to serve a population of 60,000 in the
year 2020 (spreadsheet attached). We also assumed that whatever interest costs were incurred as
part of those buildings should be offset by impact fees. So, we created an impact fee that was
$5,509 if paid at time of building permit and $3,288 if paid at time of final plat.
Because of the economic downturn, the City has pushed the construction of all new
buildings far into the future. Land prices are cheap, and we may be able to rehab and/or expand
an existing building at a cheaper rate than new construction. Also, in an effort to stimulate
development through a lower initial price point, it would make sense to lower the municipal
building impact fee.
It is my recommendation that we reduce the municipal building impact fee by only
calculating the need for a police station and one larger public works facility, and by eliminating
the inclusion of interest costs in the impact fee justification. By doing those three things, we can
reduce the fee to $1,769 and still have the costs of two large public buildings covered through
impact fees in the future. Further, since we have reduced the price of the impact fee even though
we still need a higher dollar amount, there should not be an issue with writing the impact fee
ordinance in such a way that we could justify using the impact fees on a City Hall or similar
public building in the future.
Building SF Cost/sf` 2008 2009 2012 2015
City Hall 28,265 $ 180 $ - $ - $ 8,268,750 $ -
Police Facility 54,623 $ 200 $ 14,606,811 $ - $ - $ -
Public Works/Parks 1 73,295 $ 165 $ 16,169,365 $ - $ - $ -
Public Works/Parks 2 73,295 $ 165 $ - $ 22,752,717
Furniture $ 36 $ 5,077,065 $ - $ 1,363,601 $ 4,093,366
TOTAL $ 72,331,675
IMPACT FEE $ 3,315 80% of project to be financed by new residents $ 57,865,340
2005 costs
Debt Service Costs
Police $ 9,033,733
PW1 $ 11,103,456
City Hall $ 5,082,733
PW2 $ 14,140,056
Land Acquisition Costs
Police- 10 acres @ $88,000/acre $ - Existing land
PW1 - 10 acres @ $97,240/acre 1 $ -
City Hall -3 acres @ $107,207/acre $ 321,621
PW2 - 10 acres @ $124,106/acre $ 1,241,060
Total Project Costs
Building Construction $ 72,331,675
Land Acquisition $ 1,562,681
Debt Service $ 39,359,978
TOTAL $ 113,254,334
80% of project to be financed by new residents $ 96,266,184
IMPACT FEE $ 5,515
Page 1 of 1
Building SF Cost/sf* 2011 costs
City Hall N /A $ 180 $ -
Police Facility 54,623 $ 200 $ 14,606,811
Public Works/Parks 1 73,295 $ 165 $ 16,169,365
Public Works/Parks 2 N/A $ 165
Furniture $ 36 $ 4,605,048
TOTAL $ 35,381,224
IMPACT FEE $ 1,769 80% of project to be financed by new residents $ 28,304,979
* 2005 costs
Debt Service Costs
Police $ -
PW1 $ -
City Hall $ -
PW2 $ -
Land Acquisition Costs
Police- 10 acres @ $88,000/acre $ - Existing land
PW1 - 10 acres @ $97,240/acre I $ -
City Hall -3 acres @ $107,207/acre $ -
PW2 - 10 acres @ $124,106/acre $ -
Total Project Costs
Building Construction $ 35,381,224
Land Acquisition $ -
Debt Service $ -
TOTAL $ 35,381,224
80% of project to be financed by new residents $ 28,304,979
IMPACT FEE $ 1,769
Page 1 of 1
cli
Memorandum
EST. 1836 To: Economic Development Committee
From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator
Date: June 3, 2011
<,LE Subject: Development Fee Research
Background
Due to the recent economic climate faced by all levels of governments, local
municipalities have been severely affected by the decline in new housing starts and foreclosures.
In an effort to seek out ways to "jump start"residential development, and at the behest of several
interested builders, staff has prepared the following comparison of our current schedule of fees
for development related projects and those of surrounding communities to open the dialogue for
feedback of potentially reducing these fees for new and existing developments to remain
competitive and developer-friendly in the housing market.
The fees reviewed by staff include: Building Permit Fees, Impact or Transition Fees, and
Land-Cash Donations. While Building Permit Fees affect all construction within the city, Impact
or Transition Fees and Land-Cash Donations potentially affect only new home development.
Staff has also researched potential incentive-based programs other local municipalities are
offering for residential developments for feedback and direction in negotiating new and amended
annexation agreements.
Buildin�Permit Fees
Last year, staff undertook a comprehensive building permit fee analysis and proposed
rate revisions, increases and decreases, based upon a survey of area communities (see attached).
The proposed building permit fee changes were approved by the City Council in May 2010 by
way of Ordinance No. 2010-23. The approved revisions put Yorkville's permit fees at the
median level based upon the other nine (9) communities surveyed. Staff is not proposing to
amend the recently approved schedule of fees for building permits. However, we are open to
revisiting the fees if it is the consensus of the committee.
Impact Fees
The City's developer impact fees are derived from costs typically associated with the cost
to government and "impact" on services to be provided by the city resulting from annexation and
redevelopment. Currently, the United City of Yorkville's development impact fees total
approximately $10,159.00' per unit, which excludes building permit related fees but includes the
following:
This fee applies to new annexation only,and where an annexation agreement with a fee lock does not exist.
1
Table 1.United City of Yorkville -Development Impact Fees
Public Works $700.00/unit
Police $300.00/unit
Municipal Building $5,509.002/unit
Library $500.00/unit
Bristol-Kendall Fire $1,000.003/unit
Engineering Capital Fee $100.00/unit
Park&Recreation Capital Fee $50.00/unit
Road Contribution Fund (City Transportation) $2,000.00/unit
TOTAL $10,159.00/unit
In April of 2010, staff has researched surrounding municipalities to evaluate our
development impact fees. Attached is a comparison chart of the estimated costs to construct a
typical $250,000 square foot, 4-bedroom home in Yorkville and in five (5) surrounding
communities. It is important to note that since this chart was prepared, both Plainfield and
Sugar Grove passed ordinances which eliminated or drastically reduced their city capital
impact fees in response to the decline in new construction building permits (refer to attached).
The Village of Shorewood, Illinois located approximately 20 miles southwest of Yorkville, also
reduced its development impact fees by 15% in April 2011. Among the communities staff
compared: Montgomery, Oswego, Plainfield, Plano and Sugar Grove, the United City of
Yorkville has one of the highest city capital/impact fee rates in the area.
The chart also compares fees generated by other governmental agencies such as the
county, school, library, and fire districts. Of similar interest, the following chart compares the
sewer connection and infrastructure fees for area sanitary districts which also have a financial
impact on new home construction. From the data gathered the Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District
(YBSD), which services most of Yorkville in addition to Fox Metro, has the highest single-
family residential annexation fees of the surveyed sanitary districts but is mid-range in
infrastructure and connection fees.
Annexation Fee Infrastructure Fee Connection Fee
Downers Grove Sanitary District $115.00 flat fee if contiguous $3,380.00/acre $2,712.50/du
$250.00 flat fee if non-contiguous
$1,853.39/acre- $1,400/du(2+du/acre)
Fox Metro Water Reclamation District $1,400/acre $6,650.00/acre $1,900/du(1-2 du/acre)
(includes annexation
fee) $2,900/du(< 1 du/acre)
Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District $4,228.00/acre $4,228.00/acre $1,400/du
Fox River Water Reclamation District $2,800.00/acre ----- $2,800.00/du
Fee is effective as of 3/14/06 and paid at time of building pennit.However,if the fee is paid for in its entirety during the time of the first final
plat,the fee will be$3,288.00 per residential dwelling for each unit annexed,zoned and platted for residential development.
Fee is effective as of I/1/05 and applies to single-family and single-family attached(duplexes and townhomes);any multifamily structure
(apartment buildings)are$500.00 per unit.
2
Land-Cash Donations
The city's land-cash ordinance establishes the fair-market value for any parcel of
residential land as a means of determining the per acre fee for cash-in-lieu of park land
donations. Currently, Yorkville's land-cash value is $101,000 per acre for a residential
development. The land-cash value has not been re-evaluated since its most recent amendment in
2006—during the height of the housing boom.
A brief comparison summary of the surrounding communities land cash values is
provided in table form as follows:
Table 2. Land Cash Donation Ordinance of Local Municipalities Comparison
Crrtnnrunity/Agency
shiml W. at"
County(ies)
Kendall County Forest Preserve Disirk 2006 $110,554/acre Kendall
Oswegoland Park District 2006 $110,000/acre Kendall,Will
i Plainfield Township Park District 1988 $139,725/acre Kendall,Will
Plante 2006 $96,463.00/acre Kendall
Sugar Grove 1995 $80,000/acre Kane
Yorkville 2006 $101,000 1acre Kendall
As indicated in the table above, Yorkville's land-cash value is within the median range as
compared to other local municipalities which range between $80,000/acre on the low end and
upwards to nearly $140,000/acre. As of February 2010, the Village of Plainfield was reviewing
its land-cash donation fee as part of a strategic plan to re-evaluate its overall development impact
fee structure.
A comprehensive Land-Cash Donation Ordinance Survey of various Illinois
municipalities was prepared by the Office of Recreation and Park Resources at the University of
Illinois in spring 2009. A copy of that report has been attached for your information.
Incentive Prozrams for Residential Development
A couple of the surveyed municipalities in addition to reducing impact fees have also
initiated incentive-based programs to stimulate residential development within their
communities. They include the following:
• Streamlined engineering review process (Plainfield) —permit preliminary engineering at
time of site plan review with final engineering required only at time of the building
permit or prior to any earth work. This also lowers the developers' upfront costs of
preparing costly plans and can spread the soft costs out over a longer timeframe in their
budget pro forma.
3
• Pennit Fee Rebate/Deferral Program (Sugar Grove) — allows for the up-front rebate of
50% (up to $5,000) of impact fees and a 100% reduction of transition fees. This program
also allows for the deferral of the payment of some building pennit fees from the current
rate.
• Rebate Prouarn of Certain Impact Fees (Minooka)—a $100,000 Village funded program
was established to rebate hornebuyers to entice new home construction. For single-family
homes, the homebuilder would put up $5,000 for impact fees which the Village would
match. Upon closing of the home, the Village would pay the homeowner $10,000.
Homebuyers of duplexes received $5,000 with the builder and Village putting up $2,500
each. Since the program's inception approximately 3 years ago, the fund had to be fully
replenished by the Village Board and some larger homebuilders opted not to participate
in the program.
Staff is seeking input for the committee to see if there is enough interest to pursue creating an
incentive program similar to those mentioned-above. I will be available at Tuesday night's
meeting to discuss the information provided in this memo in greater detail.
4
COMPARISON OF VARIOUS LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
BUILDING PERMIT FEES
MUNICIPALITY DECK COMM IN- ABOVE PLUMBING DETACHED TEMPORARY RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING
(D) DRIVEWAY GROUND GROUND ALTERATION GARAGE PARKING PLAN INSPECTION
POOL POOL TRAVEL REVIEW FEE
A TRAILERS C
Aurora 70 No Permit 446 (F) Inflatable 210 70 No Permit 10% 0
es
Inf. 150
Kendall County 125 125 150 1 100 75 100 and up No Permit 176 50
Minooka 35 245E 150 100 125 H 275 No Permit 100 40
Montgomery 68 30 9 per 1 00s ' 55 205 No Permit 125 50
North Aurora 69 No Permit 28/100s ' 52 185 417 F No Permit 12%Permit Fee 95
Oswego 96 325E 96 and up 96 142 H 230 F No Permit 168 50
Plano 50 No Permit 50 50(B) 51 per Drain 409 F No Permit 0 0
St. Charles 70 70 185 55 151.40 H 90 No Permit 125 (l) 65
Sugar Grove 89 60+ 300 55 300 243(F) No Permit 10% Permit 35
Consultant Fee
Fees
Yorkville 135 90 135 90 135 180 200 100 45
(A) Includes temporary inflatable pools
(B) Only 8 In-ground pool permits issued, the Code Official said they lose money on each one
(C) Based on a 2,200 sq ft home
(D) Deck fee based on 340 sq ft
(E) Based on$22,000 Driveway
(F) Based on$25,000
(G) Residential only
(H) Based on$10,000 project
(1) Submittal Fee
-All examples assume a$250,000, 2,200 sf,4 bedroom home
Yorkville Plainfield Sugar Grove Joliet Oswego Montgomery
Annexation $ - $ 2,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Building Permit $ 1,754.80 $ 2,025.00 $ 550.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 308.00
City Beautification $ - $ 250.00 $ - $ - $ - $ -
City Transition $ - $ - $ 506.14 $ - $ 353.72 $ -
City Transportation $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ 475.00
County Transportation $ 1,754.80 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,234.00 $ -
Fire District Transition $ - $ - $ 497.00 $ - $ - $ -
Fire District Impact $ - $ - $ 486.00 $ 1,200.00 $ - $ 300.00
City ImpactiCapital $ - $ - $ 6,878.00 $ 1,600.00 $ - $ 2,100.00
Public Works $ 700.00 $ - Total,see above Total,see above Total,see above Total,see above
Police $ 300.00 $ - Total,see above Total,see above Total,see above Total,see above
Municipal Buildings $ 5,509.00 $ 2,000.00 Total,see above Total,see above Total,see above Total,see above
Library $ 500.00 $ 284.00 Total,see above Total,see above Total,see above Total,see above
Parks and Recreation $ 50.00 $ - Total,see above Total,see above Total,see above Total,see above
Engineering $ 100.00 $ - Total,see above Total,see above Total,see above Total,see above
Fire District $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Total,see above Total,see above Total,see above Total,see above
Inspections $ 195.00 $ 175.00 $ - $ - $ 45.00 $ 50.00
Library District Transition $ - $ - $ 206.68 $ - $ - $ -
Library District Impact $ - $ - $ 212.00 $ - $ 707.11 $ 292.00
Life Safety-Police $ - $ - $ 200.00 $ - $ - $ -
Life Safety-Fire $ - $ - $ 200.00 $ - $ - $ -
School Facilities $ - $ - $ - $ 4,826.00 $ - $
School Impact $ - $ 4,826.00 $ 4,063.95 $ - $ 2,672.00 $ -
School Land Cash $ 4,780.48 $ 3,926.00 $ 3,523.00 $ 2,238.00 $ 4,100.00 $ 2,430.00
School Transition $ 3,000.00 $ - $ 2,814.00 $ 821.00 $ 1,642.00 $ 3,000.00
Township Transition $ - $ - $ 77.00 $ - $ - $ -
Transition Fee $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,323.00 $ -
Water Connection $ 3,700.00 $ 3,110.00 $ 4,637.50 $ 3,500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 2,000.00
Water Meter $ 250.00 $ 360.00 $ 354.00 $ 250.00 $ 4,638.00
Weather Warning Siren $75/acre $ - $ 25.00 $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 25,594.08 $22,456.00 $ 26,230.27 $ 15,685.00 $ 26,014.83 $ 10,955.00
' Michael P. Collins
NRESIDENI
Michelle Gibas
VJLLAGE CLERK
TRUSTEES
Margie Bonuchi
Paul Fay
Larry Kachel
Bill Lamb
Garrett M. Peck
Press Release .lames Racich
March 2, 2010
For Immediate Publication:
Plainfield Village Board Votes To Eliminate Impact Fees
Plainfield, IL -- To help spur economic development, the Village Board approved a resolution
eliminating all Village impact fees for residential and commercial development on March 1s1.
Effective immediately, the annexation, municipal, traffic, and beautification impact fees have been
eliminated, saving builders and in turn, homeowners an average of$7,000 per home while commercial
developers will save an average pf over $4000. The Village's goal in eliminating these fees is to make
homes more affordable and to encourage commercial development.
To further assist developers, the Village will allow permit and impact fees to be paid at the time of
occupancy rather than prior to construction. This flexibility in timing payments allows builders to
proceed with a development during challenging economic times. Furthermore, builders will be charged
a fixed engineering fee rather than the hourly rate previously charged. This eliminates uncertainty for
the developers as they budget for and then construct their development.
All of these measures are part of the Village's new Strategic Business Plan which has been in
development for the last several months. The Village Board has taken a proactive stance in regards to
economic development and as part of the Business Plan, the Village has been working with the
development community to discuss ways to encourage both residential and commercial development.
I
As Mayor Collins explained at a recent meeting, "The Village has been working to position itself for
economic recovery. We want to be ready when development takes off again. Plainfield is open for
business."
To review a copy of the Village's Business Plan,visit the Village's web site,www.plainfield-il.org.
For additional information,please contact:
Michael Garrigan
Village Planner
(815) 439-2825
24401 W.Lockport Street Plainfield,IL 60544
Phone(815)436-7093 Fax(815)436-1950 Web www.plainfield-il.org
Village of Sugar Grove a Residential Permit Fee Rebate Program
The Village of Sugar Grove recognizes that due to the current difficult economic
condition, the residential housing development industry has been adversely affected. In
an attempt to assist the industry the Village is offering a short-term fee permit and fee
rebate program. This program is limited to the first thirty-five (35) permits applied for by
October 29, 2010. Additionally a certificate of occupancy for the permit applied for
must be issued by October 31, 2011 to qualify for the program.
The program provides an up-front rebate of 50% (up to $5,000) of impact fees and a
100% reduction of transition fees. The program also allows for the deferral of the
payment of some fees from the current requirement of paying at building permit
issuance to payment upon receipt of the certificate of occupancy. Rebates and
deferrals are limited to those as specified in the specific annexation agreement,
development agreement, Planned Unit Development Ordinance, and/or similar
documents that govern the applicable subdivision in which the home is to be built.
The Village of Sugar Grove firmly believes that programs and projects that stimulate
development stimulate the local economy. We hope that you will take advantage of this
program and join us in our effort to enhance our community. For additional information
or to obtain a copy of the program as passed by the Village Board please contact
Community Development at 630-466-8954.
Land-Cash , I Ordinance
Summary-Report of •
Spring 11 •
Prepared
Office of Recreation an• Park Resources
Dina Izenstark . • Robin Hall
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ....................................................................................3
METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................6
RESULTS ............................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................25
APPENDIX........................................................................................................................26
2
INTRODUCTION
The Office of Recreation and Park Resources (ORPR) at the University of Illinois
conducted a survey on Land Dedication Ordinances in order to update the previous study
conducted in June 2003 by Dr. Ted Flickinger and John Comerio for the Illinois
Association of Park Districts. The purpose of the survey was to gain up-to-date
information that would help assist agencies, communities and counties that are
considering an ordinance gain valuable knowledge based on the experiences shared by
the respondents as well as assist agencies with an adopted land cash donation ordinance
to better understand how their ordinance compares to others.
This report is broken up into two sections. The first section is background information
that discusses the importance of Land Dedication Ordinances and provides a history of
how they have developed. The second section describes the survey we conducted
including the data collection, analysis, and discussions/conclusions.
We truly appreciate all of the feedback and information that agencies provided us in order
to make this report. If you have any question, comments, or suggestions please contact
Robin Hall or Dina Izenstark at the ORPR. The contact information is listed below.
Office of Recreation and Park Resources
104 Huff Hall
1206 S. Fourth St.
Champaign, IL 61820
217/333-4410
http://www.orpr.uiuc.edu/
3
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
"City parks and open spaces improve our physical and psychological health,
strengthen our communities, and make our cities and neighborhoods more attractive to
live and work" (Sherer, 2003, p.6). Research has illustrated that parks and open spaces
provide a number of benefits to community members both directly and indirectly. Recent
studies have found park use directly benefits individuals psychologically, socially, and
physically as it decreased stress, fostered social interaction and increased physical
activity(Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005; Godbey et al., 1998; Kweon, 1998). In addition,
parks indirectly improved individuals quality of life through the numerous environmental
benefits provided to an area including reduced noise pollution, regulated microclimate,
and improved air quality(Bolund&Hunhamrnar, 1999). As open land continues to be
developed it is increasingly important to preserve and protect open spaces in the
community.
In order to maintain the high quality of life that parks and open spaces provide for
present and future residents without raising taxes, cities can enact a Land Cash Donation
Ordinance(also know as Land Dedication Ordinance)which allows communities to
preserve open space for public parks and schools(Bernard&Nance, 1996). A Land
Cash Donation Ordinance is a law enacted by a municipal body (that could state), "...any
developer building within the city limits or 1.5 miles of the city line and seeking to annex
to the city, as a condition of being granted zoning approval,had to dedicate land (in
amounts to be determined by formula)to the school district and to the park district for
new school sites and parks (Bernard&Nance, 1996,p.1)". The first agency to establish
a land-cash donation ordinance was the Naperville Park District in 1972. In 2008, 95
agencies reported having adopted a land-cash donation ordinance within their community
or county in the state of Illinois(Flickinger&Comerio, 2003; Hall, Huang, &Izenstark,
2008). Land-cash donation ordinances provide life long benefits to a community as many
agencies have reported their value in developing parks,meeting the needs of the
conununity,providing resources for capital improvements, and much more(Flickinger &
Comerio, 2003).
The amount of land that the developer donates is dependent upon terms set forth
in the ordinance adopted by the city. The National Recreation and Park Association
recommend that 10 acres of land is donated per 1,000 residents (Monson, 2006). In the
cases in which it is impossible for the developer to donate land they are required to
provide cash in lieu of land. The net worth of land is different among each town and city.
However, in 2008 the Office of Recreation and Park Resources and IDNR conducted a
survey and found 95 agencies adopted a Land-Cash Donation Ordinance and of the
agencies that had a required amount of land developers were required to donate, 35% of
agencies required 10 acres, 19% of agencies required 5.5 acres, and six agencies required
15 acres to be donated per 1000 residents in the population. Additionally,the average
amount of dollars developers donated varied greatly from community to community and
within different regions of the state. Please see attached appendix in order to get a better
idea of the number of acres per dollar amount that land-cash donation ordinances
4
required developers to provide agencies (Flickinger& Comerio, 2003; Hall, Huang, &
Izenstark, 2008).
Agencies that have adopted a land-cash donation ordinance have provided many
suggestions to other agencies considering adopting an ordinance. Some of the most
common suggestions include: 1) land values should be regularly updated to ensure
adequate funds are supplied to help meet parks and recreation demands of the
community, 2) active use land is only acceptable which does not account for
detention/retention land for credit, and 3)that park agency officials should be involved
with the city in the planning process. One example, of a county taking advantage of these
suggestions is in Kendall County.
In 2001, Kendall County updated their counties land-cash ordinance from $45,000
per acre to $98,000 per acre(Scott, 2005). This means, if a developer wants to contribute
cash to a taxing body instead of donating land they are required to contribute $98,000 per
acre. Additionally, their previous ordinance required that developers donate "high and
dry" land or land that isn't considered floodplain or wetlands, so the district can use it as
park or forest preserve land. The new ordinance does not consider land in a flood plain
worthy as a creditable land donation unless the district deems it valuable to them for
some future project, such as a trail system(Scott, 2005,p.1).
Overall, these findings clearly illustrate the importance of land-cash donation
ordinances in preserving the quality of life in the community for a number of park and
recreation agencies.
5
METHODOLOGY
In Spring 2009, the Office of Recreation and Park Resources conducted a survey of 98
selected agencies that had previously indicated the adoption of a land dedication
ordinance based on records from the IAPD. Using survey monkey, 98 agencies received
an e-mail asking thern to participate in the Land Dedication Ordinance survey on-line.
Initially 41 agencies had responded to the survey. A follow-up e-mail was sent to all
participants who had not yet responded resulting in 17 more agencies that participated in
the survey. There were a total of 58 agencies that participated in the survey resulting in a
59%response rate. A complete list of the 58 agencies that had participated in the survey
is included in the Appendix along with an updated chart of the 98 selected agencies that
had previously indicated from past surveys the adoption of a Land Dedication Ordinance.
A copy of the questionnaire is attached to the next page followed by an analysis of each
survey question based on participant's results.
6
SURVEY
Please take a few moments to answer the following questions; your input is most appreciated.
1. Does your agency still have a Land-Cash Donation Ordinance currently in place?
1 a. If Yes, what year was it enacted? When was the last time it was updated? What was the
result of the update?
2. Based on the ordinance, what acreage amount are developers required to donate per 1000
residents?
3. What is the total acreage of land your agency has accumulated as a direct result of this
policy?
4. Based on the ordinance, what dollar amount are developers required to donate in lieu of
an acre of land?
5. Does your agency figure the cost of land or the cost of land plus improvements in
calculating the dollar amount for cash in lieu of?
6. Is your ordinance geared toward neighborhood parks, community or regional parks?
7. Do you have any trouble receiving city money or cooperation?
8. Please identify any limitations or conditions of the ordinance that impact your agency?
9. Do you have any suggestions for agencies considering a land-cash donation ordinance?
10. Please explain the value and benefits of the land-cash donation ordinance to your agency.
11. Would you like us to e-mail you a copy of the final report?
12. If you have a copy of your ordinance or any other supplemental information that you
believe will assist us or other agencies please e-mail us a copy at rrhallRillinois.edu or
send it to: ORPR-University of Illinois
104 Huff Hall
1206 S. Fourth St.
Champaign, IL 61820
7
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
Question 1. Does your agency still have a Land-Cash Donation Ordinance currently in
place?
Fifty-eight organizations (59%response rate) responded to the survey indicating that their
agency still had an active land dedication ordinance in their community.
Question la. If Yes,what year was it enacted? When was the last time it was updated?
What was the result of the update?
Thirty-five organizations (61%) indicated when the land dedication was enacted while Sixty-
three percent of the sample(n=36 agencies) indicated the last time the ordinance was
updated. Results of the update entailed an increase in acreage, value of an acre of land,
and/or an adjustment of fees. See below for respondent's responses.
Increase in Money for Development
Increase in the fair market value of land for determining contributions in lieu of park land
dedications from$205,000 (from 2004 revision)to $239,000 and to maintain the
estimated cost of subdivision improvements per acre at$45,000 for a combined total of
$284,000
An increase to the amount...
Adjustment on the fee
An increase from$234,400 per acre to $323,600 per acre
Increased to $100,000 per acre, from$75,000
To adjust land prices to market levels
An increase of 6% in the value of an acre of land to a total of$87,000 per acre
In 2008, the cash in lieu of land requirement was increased from 185,000 to 240,500 an
acre for land located in the city. Outside the city, it is 175,000 per acre
Adjusted the cash value if cash in lieu of land
Increase"fair market value" of land
Increase of cash donation amount by$20,000 per acre but none of it is passed on the Park
District. It is kept by the village
Donation is based on price land sold for
As a result of community being mostly built-out, land in lieu of was eliminated in favor
of a process that better considered property in subdivisions.Now, cash only and dollar
amounts were updated to per unit vs. per acre and revised to reflect current building
trends (i.e., town homes, multi-family units)
An increase in the value of an acre of land
More specific guidelines and cost per acre
8
Results of Agencies most recent Land Dedication Ordinance Updates (Continued)
Increase in Land and Amount of Money per Acre
Additional funds per size of the development
Increased acreage and cash contributions
Increase in cash value for land in lieu of land Increase in the amount of land to be
donated more controls on what District would accept, or expect with the donation
Increased dollar per acre and land donation per person
Change in acreage requirement, update per acre $$ in lieu of amount,per acre initial
improvements fee and population density table
Re-assessment of Land Values
10 acres per 1,000 residents with a cash value of$110,000 per acre
Increase in the value per acre, increase in numbers of acres/1000 population as well as the
inclusion of several other conditional requirements the developer is obligated to follow
Increase in fees and acreage
Increased acre value
Increase to acreage and land value
9
2. Based on the ordinance,what acreage amount are developers required to donate
per 1000 residents?
Thirty-nine agencies (67.4%)responded to this question and three of those responses were
invalid. The majority of the sample indicated the required acreage was 10 acres per 1000
residents (17 agencies; 43.5%) or 15 acres per 1000 residents(5 agencies; 12.8%)per 1000
residents. Figure 1 indicates the respondents supplied acreage amounts from the survey.
Figure 1.
Sample Results of Acreage Amount Developers are Required _
to Donate per 1000 Residents -38
15 acres
Other 13%
34%
15 acres
®10 acres
C3 5.5 acres
j❑Other
5.5 acres 10 acres
45%
8%
From the population of agencies that have land dedication ordinances according to IAPD
records (n=98), the majority of agencies reported 10 acres per 1000 residents (40 agencies;
40%). Eleven out of the 99 agencies results were considered invalid due to outliers and/or
results that were not available. Figure 2 indicates respondents supplied acreage amounts
from all agencies that have reported having a Land Dedication Ordinance according to IAPD
records.
10
Figure 2.
Population Results Developers are Required to
Donate per 1000 Residents
N=99
15 acres
Invalid Results 6%
Other(7-15 12% :
acres) -�
15%
Other(1-6.5 - 10 acres
acres) 42%
9% .. .tip
5-5.5 acres
16%
3. What is the total acreage of land your agency has accumulated as a direct result of
this policy?
Of the 36 respondents (62%)that answered this question there was a wide range of
responses. 13 respondents indicated they did not know the total acreage of land that had
been accumulated as a direct result of the Land Dedication Ordinance. The lowest number of
acres that was accrued was .65 (Pleasant Dale Park District)while the highest number of
areas accrued was 1,048 (Naperville Park District). A relationship between length of time
since Land Dedication was enacted and number of acres accrued appeared to exist among
many agencies. Please see Table 2 in the Appendix for exact figures among each agency.
4. Based on the ordinance,what dollar amount are developers required to donate in
lieu of an acre of land?
The dollar amount developers are required to donate in lieu of an acre of land severely
differed among the agencies. Thirty-six respondents (62%) answered the question with a
range of dollar amounts from$20,000 to $323,600. See Table 1 for exact figures among
each agency.
The answers to questions 1-4 from respondents are located in Table 1 on the next page. This
chart illustrates the 99 agencies that had previously or currently indicated they had a land-
dedication ordinance along with the year it was enacted, the year the ordinance was updated, the
acreage amount developers are required to donate per 1000 residents,the dollar amount
11
developers are required to donate in lieu of an acre of land, and the total acreage of land the
agency has accumulated as a direct result of their Land Dedication Ordinance.
12
Table 1. Communi Agencies with a Land Dedication Ordinance
Agency Year Enacted Year Updated Acres Dollars Population County
# Served
1 Arlington Heights Park District 1982 n/a 10 165,000 78000 Cook
Aurora,Community Development(City) 1969(Last update n/a 10 71,608 175,952 Kane,DuPage,
2 4/2008) Kendall,Will
Bartlett Park District 1976 n/a 10 250,000 41000 Cook,Dupage,
3 Kane
Batavia Park District 1971 2000 10 100,000 27000 Kane
4
5 Beecher(Village) 1999 n/a 5 60,000 4108 Will
Belvidere Park District 1989 2007 6.5 84,313 in County 32000 Boone
6 120,000 in City
7 Bloomingdale Park District 1994 No update 5.5 65,000/acre 24000 DuPage
Bloomington Parks and Recreation 1987 n/a 10 Acres Market Value 75000 McLean
g Department
Bolingbrook Park District 1970s 2004 10 $160000 Total of which 71000 Will
only$70,000 is given to
the park district
9
Boone County Conservation District Originally in the n/a It varies This also varies depending 41786 Boone
late 1980's by the on which entity's
County ordinance is in place
10
11 Buffalo Grove Park District 1981 n/a 10 175,000 43700 Lake, Cook
12 Butterfield Park District 2006 n/a 5.5 350,000 10000 DuPage
13 Byron Park District 2001 2007 5 84,000 10000 Ogle
14 Carol Stream Park District 1980's n/a 4 125,000 47000 DuPage
15 Cary Park District Prior to 1994 n/a 10 150000 26252 McHenry
16 Channahon Park District March 2005 n/a 9 50000 17000 Will
17 Crete Park District 1991 n/a 5.5 n/a 7200 Will
18 Crystal Lake Park District Revised in 2005 n/a 10 135,000 58000 McHenry
19 Deerfield Park District 1993 Hasn't been 15 175,000 18500 Lake,Cook
20 Deer Park(Village) 2003 n/a 10 98,000 3100 Lake,Cook
DeKalb County Forest Preserve District 2006 n/a 10 Present Land Prices 100,000 DeKalb
21 8,000--12,000/acre
22 DeKalb Park District 2000 2007 11.5 100,000 45000 DeKalb
23 Downers Grove Park District 1975 n/a 10 110000 50000 DuPage
13
Table 1. Communi A encies with a Land Dedication Ordinance
Agency Year Enacted Year Updated Acres Dollars population County
# Served
Dundee Township Park District Unclear original 2007 10 110,000 53200 Kane
date but prior to
24 1992
Edwardsville Parks and Recreation 2000 n/a 10%Of land for 12,500 25000 Madison
Department green space must
be included new
25 developments
Elgin Parks and Recreation Department 1998 Value of an acre 10 87,000 104000 Kane
of land updated
26 each year
Elmhurst Park District 1993 2006 10.62 1,250 single family; 1,000 44000 DuPage
town home; 900 multi-
27 family
Fox Valley Park District 1972-Aurora n/a 10 103000 220000 Kane,DuPage,
28 Kendall,Will
29 Frankfort Park District 2006 Revised n/a 10 130,000 16500 Will
30 Frankfort Square Park District 1997 2006 10 80,000 17000 Will
31 Genoa Township Park District 2003 n/a 10 1 05,000 7000 DeKalb
32 Glen Ellyn Park District 1979 2007 5.5 300,000 34000 DuPage
Glendale Heights Park and Recreation 1959 1996 10 75,000 32400 DuPage
33 Department
Glenview Park District Pre-1990 n/a 1 acre per 10,000 $40K per acre(The Glen) 57179 Cook
&$400K per acre(all
other locations)
34
35 Grayslake Community Park District 1991 2005 15 100,000 23000 Lake
36 Gurnee Park District 1979 n/a 10 100000 34170 Lake
37 Hanover Park Park District 1982 2004 10 Value of project land 32600 Cook,DuPage
Highland Park,Park District of 12/9/03 n/a N/A N/A;Land contributions 31365 Lake
Intergovernmental in lieu of development
Impact Fee impact fee option
38 Agreement
Hinsdale Park and Recreation Department 1999 2004 15 Cash equal to fair market 18000 DuPage,Cook
value of the 15 acres plus
39 fees
Homer Glen(Village) Adopted in 2001; n/a I Iacres/thousand 100,000/acre 25000 Will
140 amended in 2006
14
Table 1. Communi Agencies with a Land Dedication Ordinance
Agency Year Enacted Year Updated Acres Dollars Population County
# Served
41 Homewood-Flossmoor Park District 1998 n/a 1 n/a 30000 Cook
42 Illiopolis Township 7/1/1981 n/a n/a 120 982 Sangamon
43 Itasca Park District n/a n/a 0.1 2,00,000 9200 Dupage
Joliet Park District 1998 n/a 7.5 for every 333 86,586 Will
44 lots/units 145,000
Kane County Forest Preserve District 05/10/1994 n/a 10.00(1.25/school Based on"fair market 450000 Kane
park; 1.00 value"-$80,000 per acre
neighborhood park;
1.25 district-wide
or play field;2.00
community-wide
recreation park;
and,4.50 County-
wide forest
45 reserve)
46 Kendall County Forest Preserve District 1978 2006 10 110,554 96818 Kendall
47 Lake Bluff Park District Revised 2004 n/a 10 540,000 8000 Lake
Lake Forest Parks&Recreation Unknown n/a 39588 15,668 per dwelling unit 20681 Lake
48 Department
Lake in the Hills Parks&Recreation n/a n/a 10 n/a 29195 McHenry
49 Department
Lake Villa(Village) Updated n/a 15 80,000 8602 Lake
50 10/23/2002
Lake Zurich Park and Recreation n/a 2005 15 Varies per unit size 18500 Lake
Department Attached and Detached
Single family/low and
high density apts)
51
Lan-Oak Park District n/a n/a 5 Fair market of the 27000 Cook
unimproved gross average
52
Lemont Park District 1995 2007 10 150,000 18700 Cook, DuPage,
53 Will
54 Lindenhurst Park District 1993 n/a 10 110000 15000 Lake
55 Lisle Park District 1999 n/a 5.5 varies 32000 DuPage
Lockport Township Park District n/a 2004 10 Depends on school district 70000 Will
that property is in.
Ranges from$32,000 per
56 acre to$125,000 per acre
15
Table 1. Communi Agencies with a Land Dedication Ordinance
Agency Year Enacted Year Updated Acres Dollars Population County
# Served
57 Manhattan Park District 2001 n/a 10.89 70000 9500 Will
58 Manteno(Village) 2005 n/a 8.8 40000 8200 Kankakee
Matteson Parks and Recreation n/a n/a n/a n/a 17000 Cook
59 Department
McHenry Parks and Recreation 1970 Original; n/a 15 107,586 24493 McHenry
60 Department 2007 revision
Medinah Park District We operate within n/a all 3 are 5.5 Varies among 9300 DuPage
61 3 jurisdictions jurisdictions
62 Morton Grove Park District 1988 n/a 10 n/a 23000 Cook
63 Mount Prospect Park District Unknown n/a 9.16 3257(17,000,000/522) 57000 Cook
Mundelein Park and Recreation District Unknown n/a *** $1,500 per n/a 36000 Lake
64 resident
65 Naperville Park District 1972 2007 8.6 323,600 142000 Dupage,Will
66 New Lenox Community Park District 1997-1998 n/a 1000 110000 58000 Will
Normal Parks and Recreation Department 1975 n/a 10 acres 45,000;Depends on 50519 McLean
67 Development
68 Northbrook Park District 1998 n/a 5 $500000 32000 Cook
Oakbrook Terrace Park District 1997 Hasn't been 5.5 125000+$31000(cost of 3000 DuPage
69 improvement)
O'Fallon Parks and Recreation 2003 2007 6 1002 per lot 26000 St. Clair
70 Department
Orland Park Recreation and Parks 1991 1996 Fair market 7 134,689 60000 Cook
Department value and in
2008 for code
71 section
Oswegoland Park District 1990 n/a 10 118,976 increasing 4% 35000 Kendall,Will
72 each Jan. 1
73 Ottawa Recreation Department 2006 n/a n/a n/a 18500 La Salle
Palatine Park District 1977 2006 9.18 not including 135,000 83000 Cook
74 school acres
Park Forest Recreation and Parks 1976 2005 10 30,000 for land plus 23462 Cook/Will
Department 10,000 for initial
75 improvement
Peoria Park District(Pleasure Driveway& 1972 n/a 1 $56/42/35 per 135000 Peoria
Park District) single/attached/departmetn
76
77 Plainfield Township Park District 1988 n/a 10 139725 110000 Will,Kendall
16
Table 1. Communi Agencies with a Land Dedication Ordinance
Agency Year Enacted Year Updated Acres Dollars Population County
# Served
Pleasant Dale Park District 1985 (with Burr 2005 5.5
Ridge only) $239,000 + cost of
subdivision
improvements per acre
at$45,000 for a
combined total of
78 $284,000
79 Rolling Meadows Park District n/a n/a n/a n/a 26000 Cook
80 Romeoville Recreation Department 1995 2004 10 70000 37000 Will
81 Roscoe(Village) 1992 n/a 7 93,997 9652 Winnebago
Roselle Park District May-05 n/a 5.5 No less than 23000 DuPage
82 $175,000/Acre
83 Round Lake Area Park District 2003 n/a 15 80000 50000 Lake
Saint Charles Park District 1989 2008 10 240,500 and 175,000 for 46000 Kane
$4 outside the city
Schaumburg Park District Village Of n/a n/a $150 to$300 per unit 76000 Cook
Schaumbrug
85 Ordinance
South Elgin Parks&Recreation 1997 1999 10.5 20,000 22000 Kane
86 Department
87 Spring Grove(Village) n/a n/a N/A 30,000 4978 McHenry
88 Streamwood Park District n/a n/a 10A/1000 83,000.00/A 36500 Cook
89 Streator(City) 2006 n/a 5.5 34,800 14200 La Salle
90 Sugar Grove Park District 1995 n/a 10 80,000 11000 Kane
Sycamore Park District 1995 2008 11.5 community 122000 14900 Dekalb
Park 1.5
91 neighborhood Park
92 Vernon Hills Park District 1980's n/a 10 190,000 24000 Lake
Warrenville Park District n/a 2006 10 261000 14000 DuPage
93
Wauconda Park District Recently updated n/a 15 100000 13000 Lake
94 in 2006
95 Waukegan Park District 1989 n/a 10 n/a 93500 Lake
96 West Chicago Park District 1995 n/a 10 230,000 33000 DuPage
97 Westmont Park District 1999 updated n/a 4 125,000 25000 DuPage
98 Wheaton Park District 2001 n/a 5.5 150000 61500 DuPage
Yorkville Parks and Recreation 1996 n/a 10 102000 16000 Kendall
99
Department
17
Question 5. Does your agency figure the cost of land or the cost of land plus improvements
in calculating the dollar amount for cash in lieu of?
Thirty-five agencies (60.3%) responded to this question. Eighteen indicated the agency figures
only the cost of land in calculating the dollar amount for cash in lieu of while seven agencies
indicated they calculate the cost of land plus improvements. Nine agencies indicated that it was
not up to the agency but determined by the City, village, or the school district while four
respondents indicated no response available.
Figure 3.
Calculation of the Dollar Amount for Cash in Lieu of?
Other 24%
Cost of Land
49%
None 8%1
iiii
Cost of Land
Plus
Improvements
19%
Additional Comments
From the agreement, "The cash contribution in-lieu-of-land shall be based on the"fair
market value"of the acres of land in the development. It has been determined that the
present"fair market value" of such improved land in and surrounding the Village is ..."
Land—we have a Real estate transfer Tax that helps in development of the park space
Park Districts have no legal authority to assess impact fees such as these. The authority
comes from the municipality. Therefore our village sets the cash equivalent. It's based on
the cost per acre
Fair market value of an acre of land in the area improved
Cost of land only for this figure. Another fee is charged for park development
Through annexation agreements we also require a capital impact fee to assist with
development costs
Land only, but cash can be used for improvements if a neighborhood park already exists
It is a Village Ordinance and they negotiate with developers on our behalf
No. Ordinance only provides for acquisition,not development
No, it is calculated by the City of Oakbrook Terrace
Villages determine this. One village does both Calculated by the school district
18
Question 6. Is your ordinance geared toward neighborhood parks, community or regional
parks?
Of the 36 respondents who answered this question 72% (n=26) indicated their ordinance was
geared toward both neighborhood and community parks. Twenty-two percent(n=8)reported the
ordinance was geared toward only neighborhood parks. Five percent(n=2) indicated the
ordinance was not geared toward parks but instead the organization was given cash donations for
redevelopment because the community itself was mostly built out.
Figure 4.
Land Dedication Ordinances
Utilization Towards Parks
Neighborhood ®Both Neighborhood and
Parks Cash Donation Community Parks
21% 6%
C Neighborhood Parks
❑Cash Donation
Both
Neighborhood
and Community
Parks
73%
19
Question 7. Do you have any trouble receiving city money or cooperation?
Of the 36 respondents who answered this question the majority indicated they had no trouble
with receiving city money or cooperation(77%,n=28). The most common reasons for not
having any trouble receiving city money or cooperation was because the organization was part of
the city or village as a Parks and Recreation Department. Among the organizations that did have
trouble reasons that were stated included:
On occasion. We would have liked it reviewed and updated more often
The first writing of the ordinance was a very long process that lasted over two years but
updates have been very easy
The ordinance does not provide an adequate amount of funding for land acquisition
It was never received until the ordinance was enacted. We lost out on many land/cash
opportunities
Some times the villages are so accommodating to the developer that full donation in land,
which must be high and dry, is not always an option
We only collect fees and land donations for new development within the unincorporated
areas of the County. Each municipality has its own donations requirements and not all of our
communities have park districts. The cities do not collect on our behalf
The money is received from the developer. The city will not issue permits until proof of
payment is presented
We cover three municipalities, each is different. One municipality has a recreation
department that receives the donation negating the Park District from receiving anything.
Another will not pass a land/cash ordinance. The third is very cooperative
City before 2006 took all the land cash funds for city parks.Now the funds and land are to go
to park district. We are pretty much land locked now though
They believe it is their money and they can give it or keep it based on their needs in a
particular area
No. Developer donations come to the Park District after the development is totally
completed.
20
Question 8. Please identify any limitations or conditions of the ordinance that impact
your agency?
A total of 33 agencies (56% response rate) answered this question. Seven indicated that they did
not have any limitations to identify. The limitations of 25 agencies that had responses are listed
below and vary across a number of different issues mainly relating to not having full control over
spending the money in relation to where they have determined the greatest need for the money.
Appropriation of Money
All funds must be spent on capital outdoor improvement in the Village of Burr Ridge
within 3 years of when we receive it. Since our district encompasses multiple cities, if we
need the money for a park outside the Village boundaries, we have to petition to use it
there
The village doesn't pass along the full amount of cash collected. They keep the lions
share
The Village has a provision that they can put 1/3 of the money in an open space and
wetland maintenance fund it they so determine the need
The Village negotiates on our behalf as well as the other taxing bodies
The city and or county enforce it at their discretion
Villages have the final say on what we will get. For the most part they listen to us,but
they still want the development
All funds go to City. We must ask them in writing and state what project will be funded.
City administrator approves
We do not control it
Issues with Ordinance
Limitations are dictated by village ordinance
Be sure to update the ordinance regularly. It is easy to fall behind on land values
Part of our park district is located in an unincorporated area of Oakbrook Terrace. If the
development is with the city limits, our ordinance requires us to purchase land within the
city limits rather than in an unincorporated area
Ordinance does not provide an adequate amount of funding to provide present or future
open space/park/recreation space
Age restricted communities are not clearly identified in the ordinance. Credit for private
open space is not clearly defined. We have spent a large amount of money in legal fees
related to these two issues
Issues with Value of Land and/or Money Received
Open space is not the problem. Development and improvements are difficult
Value not keeping pace with inflation
The Park District does not believe the village dollar amount fairly reflects the price of an
21
They can receive up to 50% credit for providing open space or neighborhood owned park
to the neighborhood. It's usually small space that is not used much by residents
Quality and location of land donations
Our community is very built up, and very few opportunities for further development exist
Additional Limitations
Assisted Living
If the land/development is already annexed, and there is a repurposing to residential we
do not see any donation. We are impacted by population,but do not get land/resources to
service this population
We are largely land locked and relatively land rich, so receive mostly cash for small and
infill development
Parks and Recreation department is a part of the Village acre of ground in Palatine.
Some parcels in Palatine are now priced at$750,000 per acre
The ordinance does not really have a benefit to my agency as we do not receive the
benefit from the ordinance. The Forest Preserve District and School Districts are the
primary beneficiaries. In some select instances a Park District might benefit,but more
times than not the open space components goes to the county Forest Preserve District.
Any limitations would affect the benefiting district and not my department. The use of
the funds is limited to the purchase of land and or the construction of facilities (buildings,
additions, on site improvements) that directly benefit the school(or open space areas and
parks) that service the population within the subdivisions fi°om which the funds were
generated. Under the statutes governing their use, if the funds are not expended within
ten years from the date on which they were paid or collected, the districts must return
them
It is actually a City Ordinance adopted on behalf of the Park District. We have no
limitations now, however could realize some if relations between the City and Park
District were to sour.
Not being updated on a regular basis is a limitation, and we are basically a land-locked
community.
22
Question 9. Do you have any suggestions for agencies considering a land-cash donation
ordinance to your agency?
Thirty-one agencies (53.4%) offered suggestions for agencies who are considering adopting a
land-cash donation ordinance. Most advice pertained to maintaining a relationship with
municipal officials, finance, and/or land.
Relationship with Municipal Officials
Make sure you have a good working arrangement with the city/village. Everyone must
work together or it won't work well
The city officials need to see a value for open space. With the economy, many are willing
to be more forgiving in order to cater to developers
Work with your City/village, get as much as you can but snake it reasonable for the
developer so they do not have disincentive doing business. In land locked communities
get cash. Do not take unwanted land as it likely has a problem for future development.
Try to be included as early in the planning process as possible and give the Planning
Commission and City Council and County Board members copies of your Park Master
Plan and Land Acquisition Plans
Work with village/city in regards to notifying developer of cash in lieu ordinance as well
as collecting developer contributions
Yes, survey other surrounding districts. Get involved with the village and the developer-
during the initial planning process
Educate elected officials that create the ordinance on how this will benefit their
community
Work very closely with your city when developing the ordinance and recruit their
assistance and commitment to the tenants of the ordinance.
Financial Advice
Take part land and part cash for development if funding is an issue
Make it as expensive as it would be allowed by your Board
If you need the land, get it. If not take the money to maintain the parks existing
Such an ordinance is a great tool for any Park and Recreation Dept. Allows capital money
to go towards development rather than just acquisition
Make sure you conduct population generation studies and an analysis of land costs and
acreage requirements of the benefiting districts so that the population/acreage ratios
correlate directly to the impacts you are trying to offset
Develop a good relationship with your city council and city staff. GO for at least$
261,000 per acre
Land Advice
Do not include the value of wetlands or storm water management areas in your
valuations. Don't accept the developer's wasteland as your open space donation
Make sure it specifies the quality of land to be donated,no credit for wetlands
I would recommend getting 10 acres per 1,000
23
Develop a park plan to guide development 2. Review ordinance periodically
Make sure it is set up to provide acreage/1000 and that it provides both acquisition and
development funding. Also,the land provided should not be the development outlets,
gullies and stream buffers (undevelopable land under your present code). If the land is
undevelopable for residential development, it probably is not very good land for any park
use/development either
Set requirements high to start with. It's harder to amend the ordinance later
Make sure you have the ability to choose land or cash. Do not accept sub-par land (i.e.
detention)
Make sure an accurate current land value is used and the ordinance needs to be either
updated annually automatically through an agreed upon acceptable formula or at the
minimum be adjusted every 5 years to reflect currently land value
Additional Suggestions
Remove credit for private open space from your ordinance, since it is difficult to
quantify. Add demographic tables for age-restricted communities.
Do it!
Should have one if any potential of developments
It's a must, even if you do not have a lot of development going on
Do it before the growth
Do your homework and be aware of any new developments early on when they are being
proposed to the county or city. Green space may be incorporated within the development
much easier in the early stages and prior to permitting. Too late and you end up with
unusable land or cash
Have something
No recreation agency should be without one
Make it mandatory that Park Agency controls whether cash or land and that money must
be turned over within the same Quarter it is collected
Do not hesitate. Get an ordinance in place and do not be shy about thinking out of the
box when inserting your requests for developers.
24
Question 10. Please explain the value and benefits of the land-cash donation ordinance to
your agency?
Thirty-four respondents (60%)provided valuable input on what some of the major benefits of
having a land-cash donation ordinance is to their agency. The responses were categorized into
three sub-dimensions: land, money for development, and additional suggestions.
Land
The ordinance has allowed the Park District to add parks in the event of a land donation
or accumulate cash for land purchases over the years. This has extended the capabilities
of the District to delivery quality recreational services
The ability to provide more neighborhood parks and amenities at fewer costs to the
village/department
It provides open space simultaneously with the development of the community
Without it we would not be able to continue to provide parks and facilities to our growing
community
We have parks in every neighborhood that might not otherwise be there.
Best way to expand parks at no cost to the taxpayer. We have received more that a two
million in cash which has been parlayed with OSLAD grants
It is the only way to obtain park land in new subdivisions for development. We may
negotiate taking dry bottom detention areas in exchange for additional cash for
development
As a result of this ordinance, 15 parks are available for public use. Cash given has
assisted in the development of many park areas
We have received 43 acres of park land in neighborhoods and hundred's of thousands of
dollars for purchases of.land
Helps to balance the impact of development. In the 1970's and early 80's, it was a good
way to acquire park land
The ordinance has been a valuable tool in obtaining land/or cash that can be used to
satisfy the open space needs of new neighborhoods quicker than they may have been
satisfied without the ordinance
The ordinance has allowed our district to obtain land through out town that we would not
have been able to buy with our limited funds
Guarantees parkland for everyone forever
It may help us save some green space that is the last undeveloped land within our
community and provide a natural setting and buffer for residents as well as ensure that
the ecosystems are not completely disturbed. It also provides"teeth" legally that
developers will have to put aside a portion for parks and recreation
The ordinance supplements our Capital Improvement Fund,which has been severely
impacted by tax cap legislation. It has allowed us to place parks in newer parts of our
territory without impacting traditional Capital Improvement funds.
Money for Development
The money brought in by this fund has enabled us to provide multiple park improvements
(resurface tennis courts,resurface basketball courts,refurbish baseball fields, install
25
baseball field lights, resurface walking paths, install aerators in our ponds, install a new
playground, etc.)
Land that we wouldn't nonnally have received, cash for projects on small pieces of land,
etc.
Cash to make improvements and use with OSLAD grants
We are a small agency with a limited budget and are unable to provide capital dollars to
purchase land or make improvements
We aver received significant dollars and hope to receive more
Monetary contributions have allowed for improvements in park(s)near the development
The present fee structure does not provide an adequate amount to be of any benefit
We have the ability to make big improvements when we get the donations
A fair and equitable way for new developers to pay their fair share of additional burdens
Much needed development capital that can be leveraged for OSLAD funding. Can only
be used for the area and park site in question as interpreted by our Village.
Additional Suggestions
The ordinance does not really have a benefit to my agency as none of the revenue
generated goes into a general fund or other sources that would directly benefit this
department. All monies collected go to the affected districts that can then use the funds
to purchase land or construct improvements to benefit the residents of the developments
from which the funds were generated
Recognizes the potential impact to the agency on services
While it has not produced large amounts of land or money, having the concept in place is
important
Gives us flexibility
It is essential for our ability to serve the new residents
Per unit methodology works well in a built-out community that experiences
resubdivisions rather than new development
Benefits are not to agency but to community
Only feasible way to include park systems through the community
We have received approximately 75,000 over a two year period
26
REFERENCES
Bedimo-Rung, A.L., Mowen, A.J., & Cohen, D.A. (2005). The significance of parks to physical
activity and public health a conceptual model.American Journal of Preventative
Medicine, 28, 159-168.
Bernard, M. &Nance, E. (1996). Land Cash Donation Ordinances Naperville Revisited and
Today. Preserving Public Land. Retrieved
littp://ivww.lib.niu.edu/ipo/I 996/ip96053 9.html.
Bolund, P., &Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas.Ecological Economics,
29, 293-301.
Flickinger, T., &Comerio, J., (2003). Illinois Association of Park Districts Land-Cash Donation
Ordinance Survey Summary, Unpublished report, Illinois Association of Park Districts,
Springfield IL.
Godbey, G., Roy, M., Payne, L., &Orsega-Smith, E. (1998). The Relation between Health and
Use of Local Parks.National Recreation Foundation.
Kweon, B. S., Sullivan, W.C., &Wiley, A. (1998). Green common spaces and the social
integration of inner-city older-adults. Environment Behavior, 30, 832-858.
Monson, M. (2006, Jan 13). Required land gifts for parks criticized. The News-Gazette.
Retrieved March 7, 2006 from www.news-gazette.com.
Sherer, P. (2003). The benefits of parks: Why Americans needs more city parks and open space.
Retrieved November 10, 2007, from The Trust for Public Land Web site:
http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/parks for_people_Ju12005.pdf.
Scott, T. (2005). Updated Kendall land-cash law approved measure more than doubles developer
cost for cash contributions. Ledger-Sentinel. 6/23/2005. Retrieved February 22, 2008,
from Ledger-Sentinel Web site: http://www.ledgersentinel.com/article.asp?a=4138.
27
APPENDIX
Figure 5.
Number of Cities within each County that have a Land Dedication
Ordinance
25 23
21
N 20 - - 18
+r 16
15 ---
O
L
W 10 9 -
� 6 5
Z 5
2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
0 ,
� o� Ao a� �
� O
�o
County
28
Table 2. Agencies that Responded to the Survey
Agencies That Responded to the Survey Total Acres Accrued from Ordinance
Arlington Heights Park District n/a
Batavia Park District 150 of the current 358 they own
Belvidere Park District 43
Bloomingdale Park District n/a
Bolingbrook Park District 700
Boone County Conservation District n/a
Buffalo Grove Park District n/a
Byron Park District 1
Cary Park District n/a
Channahon Park District n/a
Deerfield Park District None
DeKalb Park District n/a
Downers Grove Park District n/a
Dundee Township Park District 40
Elgin Parks and Recreation Department n/a
Elmhurst Park District n/a
Frankfort Park District 42
Genoa Township Park District n/a
Glen Ellyn Park District n/a
Glendale Heights (Village) n/a
Glenview Park District n/a
Grayslake Community Park District 180
Hanover Park Park District n/a
Hinsdale Park and Recreation Department n/a
Homewood-Flossmoor Park District n/a
Joliet Park District 57 acres
Kane County Forest Preserve District n/a
Lake Zurich Park and Recreation Dept. n/a
Lan-Oak Park District less than 2
Lemont Park District 14.5
Lindenhurst Park District n/a
Lockport Township Park District 100+
Manteno(Village) n/a
Matteson Parks and Recreation Department n/a
McHenry Parks and Recreation Department n/a
Mount Prospect Park District n/a
Mundelein Park and Recreation District n/a
Naperville Park District 1048
Oakbrook Terrace Park District n/a
O'Fallon Parks and Recreation Department 10
Orland Park Recreation and Parks
Department 150
Oswe oland Park District n/a
Palatine Park District 37.5
Park Forest Recreation and Parks
Department less than 5
Peoria Park District 25
Pleasant Dale Park District 0.65
Romeoville Recreation Department 184.5
29
Round Lake Area Park District 200
Saint Charles Park District 125
Schaumberg Park District n/a
South Elgin Parks and Recreation Dept. 250
Spring Grove(Village) n/a
Sycamore Park District 300+
Vernon Hills Park District n/a
Warrenville Park District 0
Wauconda Park District n/a
Westmont Park District n/a
Wheaton Park District n/a
30